|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK airport expansion
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Here in the UK, the "Airports Commission" have come to the end of the latest attempt to decide anything about expanding airport capacity.
BBC report
As you can see from that report, the PM has suggested there will be a decision by the end of the year.
The two options from the report are either a third runway at Heathrow, or a new runway at Gatwick instead.
What would the Pope say? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
But seriously - who needs an expansion, and where should it go?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
There is no reason not to do both. If the government decide to do X over Y, they're essentially handing the controlling company of X airport a licence to print money.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Leaving all other considerations aside, would there be enough investors around to do both? I can see where the money comes from once it's up and running, but the upfront costs aren't trivial. Ironically I could imagine that if both were on offer, people could get more nervous about doing either.
It's not really the sort of project where two shops are opening up near each other and it doesn't really matter if one goes bust in a years time. Particularly given that aside from the actual airport itself, there will need to be massive investment in the surrounding infrastructure, presumably paid for by the tax payer.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Invest in high speed rail instead. Remove a large number of short haul flights to UK and NW European cities - and, indeed some slightly further afield like the south of France - by providing a rail service that is competative in journey time. That will free up a lot of capacity at all UK airports. At present, to get from Glasgow to London takes 1.5h flight time (plus, travel to/from airports, clearing security and hanging around/boarding - so a total of closer to 3h). The train is 4.5h. A high speed rail cutting that to 3h would be very attractive, and if some of those services went to airports to connect to long haul flights that would also cut out the initial short-haul leg of an intercontinental journey.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
One country that's addicted to flying and that would be ideally suited for high speed rail is Brazil. 160 million people living in a narrow strip along the coast, without mountains: it couldn't be better. Just build a line from Buenos Aires / Montevideo to São Luís in the North, passing through Rio and São Paulo with maybe a side branch to Belo Horizonte ... perfect!
Nowadays, the airways are congested, with delays, long waiting times, airports that are a long way outside of city centres ... High speed rail would be so much better for this country.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Do something about the 1944 treaty which banned taxation of aviation fuel used for civil aviation. Of course, back then there was a desire to encourage civil aviation and we knew little of the problems we now face. A treaty that was the bees knees seventy years ago doesn't look such a good thing now. My view is that it gives civil aviation an unfair advantage over surface travel.
See this here from 2012, issued by the House of Commons. It shows that the government doesn't want to tackle the problem at source.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
The M25 between the M3 and M4 junctions is already overloaded. The implications of years of work on it are dire.
Meanwhile, anyone going in or out of international airports can be left in no doubt, as they wait for an hour or so, of the hostility of governments to travel.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wet Kipper
Circus Runaway
# 1654
|
Posted
Rather than encourage more "capacity" in the south of England, and claim it's also a benefit for those in other regions of the country due to improved choice of connections to your end destination, do something which encourages air companies to have more direct flights from the regional airports to where you actually want to go!
I don't see how adding an extra runway to allow more flight slots will do anything to make it quicker/easier to transfer than the existing offerings
No, I'm not at all bitter and twisted about always having to change somewhere (usually LHR) when trying to get places from Edinburgh
--------------------
- insert randomly chosen, potentially Deep and Meaningful™ song lyrics here -
Posts: 9841 | From: further up the Hill | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
... Meanwhile, anyone going in or out of international airports can be left in no doubt, as they wait for an hour or so, of the hostility of governments to travel.
And of the providers.
There was a time, long ago, when flying genuinely was an exciting novelty. It's long past time both airlines and airports started to treat us as customers they want to please. Both still live in the illusion that they are doing us a tremendous favour by letting us fly in their 'planes.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've seen the suggestion that airlines actively make the basic flying experience as unpleasant as possible. They shrink leg room in economy, and provide a "premium economy" option (which is basically economy as it was 10 years ago with a drink while people board). They could board aircraft faster (why do they only use one door?), but then why would you pay for fast track?
And, airports are not really interested in providing comfortable seats - they want you in the bars, shops and restaurants spending money.
As for security, well that's a joke. Someone manages to get a bit of explosive in the heel of their shoe, or some chemicals in a soda bottle, and we're all put through additional restrictions. On the otherhand, someone goes on a rampage with a gun in the US and the inconvenience of enforcing licensing for firearms is a big civil liberties issue and so will never happen ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Most of the security checks are just for show, designed to make make people feel safer whilst doing little to actually make people safer. All you need to do it buy a bottle of vodka from tax free, a lighter from a kiosk and Bob's your uncle...
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wet Kipper:
Rather than encourage more "capacity" in the south of England, and claim it's also a benefit for those in other regions of the country due to improved choice of connections to your end destination, do something which encourages air companies to have more direct flights from the regional airports to where you actually want to go!
I don't see how adding an extra runway to allow more flight slots will do anything to make it quicker/easier to transfer than the existing offerings
No, I'm not at all bitter and twisted about always having to change somewhere (usually LHR) when trying to get places from Edinburgh
It's a two way street (or rather flight) though isn't it? There'd be more flights if more people wanted to go where you were wouldn't there? The destination for one person is the origin for another.
I think the focus has really been about hub airports this time around - Heathrow is already Britain's biggest and so is favoured to get bigger.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think the focus has really been about hub airports this time around - Heathrow is already Britain's biggest and so is favoured to get bigger.
Yes, the point of comparison is usually with cities like Paris etc. However, New York shows that a multiple hub model can also work.
Granted the London airports are further from the centre - but create good transport links between them (which would imply high speed rail), and there is no reason why there wouldn't be a more even distribution of passengers between Heathrow/Gatwick/Stanstead.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think the focus has really been about hub airports this time around
It has been for a long time. Hub airports mean airlines can invest in bigger and bigger jets to carry more and more people in one go (thus saving money through economies of scale), but those people will be going to and from a myriad of places. The solution is to ferry them from their various starting points to the hub, chuck them all on the same plane for the majority of their journey, and then ferry them to their various destinations.
It's the same principle by which the Post Office and most freight movers operate - use the big vehicles between sorting hubs and the little ones from the hubs to the ultimate destinations.
Of course, what it means is that any expansion of your business is inevitably going to require more capacity at the hubs. Which is what this is all about.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just build a line from Buenos Aires / Montevideo to São Luís in the North, passing through Rio and São Paulo with maybe a side branch to Belo Horizonte ... perfect!
At it happens, Belo Horizonte is the one place in Brazil which does have a daily intercity passenger train service, to/from Vitoria. And it had brand-new trains last year.
The route between Sao Paulo and Rio is famous for its near-continuous "Air Bridge" plane service.
[ 01. July 2015, 15:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: At it happens, Belo Horizonte is the one place in Brazil which does have a daily intercity passenger train service, to/from Vitoria. And it had brand-new trains last year.
Yes I knew about this train service (I lived in Vitória in the late nineties but I never took that train ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ). My latest information is that this line was cancelled? I hope you're right and it still exists.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Totally support investment in rail. We managed Edinburgh to Aix-en-Provence in one (long) day by train, and the slowest bit was undoubtedly the Edinburgh/London leg. The flight connections for the same journey were grim and would have left us no nearer than Marseille. But that apart, I like trains: they're comfortable and you can move about and they're very difficult to hi-jack.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
This seems to confirm that the Brazilian train does still run.
[ 01. July 2015, 16:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Firenze: they're very difficult to hi-jack.
Not impossible though. But I do agree with you.
I'm very sad that the direct train Amsterdam–Milan doesn't exist anymore.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I like trains: they're comfortable and you can move about and they're very difficult to hi-jack.
Are you quite sure about that?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: This seems to confirm that the Brazilian train does still run.
It does indeed! I'm very happy to be shown wrong, and I'll definitely consider this the next time I'm in Vitória. In fact, I have many friends who live near the Baixo Guandu station, and this would be a great way to get there!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think the focus has really been about hub airports this time around
It has been for a long time. Hub airports mean airlines can invest in bigger and bigger jets to carry more and more people in one go (thus saving money through economies of scale), but those people will be going to and from a myriad of places. The solution is to ferry them from their various starting points to the hub, chuck them all on the same plane for the majority of their journey, and then ferry them to their various destinations.
It's the same principle by which the Post Office and most freight movers operate - use the big vehicles between sorting hubs and the little ones from the hubs to the ultimate destinations.
Of course, what it means is that any expansion of your business is inevitably going to require more capacity at the hubs. Which is what this is all about.
Yes, but the question is - should "we" have one and why? I can see some logic in focusing (e.g.) transatlantic flights out of London - BA used to fly Manchester-JFK direct but that stopped a long time ago.
What people like Willy Walsh seem to be getting upset about is that Heathrow isn't necessarily the hub of choice any more for flights from East Asia to North America - Dubai having eaten Heathrow's cake in that regard.
How does being such a transport hub for people who aren't starting or ending their journeys here benefit us?
The estimated 70,000 new jobs by 2050 doesn't seem very compelling to me anyway. That only amounts to 2000 per year over the next 35 years...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, what it means is that any expansion of your business is inevitably going to require more capacity at the hubs. Which is what this is all about.
Though, if there's enough demand for a direct service that would almost always be economically more viable. And, it still surprises me that direct flights to international hubs from regional UK airports are not more viable. Surely there are enough people wanting to travel from anywhere in the UK to the US to make direct flights from Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or Glasgow to JFK economically viable rather than always going via Heathrow or Gatwick. It may require some investment in the regional airports to improve terminals, maybe extend runways to accomodate larger aircraft ... but wouldn't doing that and freeing up some of the slots from London be more cost effective than "improving" Heathrow by building a new run way.
I think what it's about isn't business efficiency. It's ego. It's the chance to say "we've got a busier airport than you have".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm guessing it would be cheaper to install a dedicated HS rail line between Gatwick and Heathrow. That would help.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm sure all the security faffle is merely there to reassure/infuriate the millions of legitimate travellers and that any amateur or even incompetent terrorist who sets his or her mind to it will have no difficulty getting through it.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
The M25 between the M3 and M4 junctions is already overloaded. The implications of years of work on it are dire.
.....
Well, yes. Indeed. but it's not just M25. That's bad enough, but bluntly, the roads around London are close to capacity as they are, and there is no obvious way of increasing the capacity or building new roads - the land is already heavily built-up.
To give an example, on the bit of motorway (M3) closest to me, there is a sign warning of congestion for the next 16, yes SIXTEEN miles. That's with things as they are. There is an attempt to increase the capacity of the motorway but I can't see that it's going to have more than a marginal effect.
And if Heathrow stays as it is, the road traffic from the airport is going to increase anyway - assuming numbers of take-offs / landings remains more or less constant, the number of passengers / amount of freight will increase as the aircraft get bigger.
And the land around London gets more and more desecrated, more and more built-up, busier, more crowded and more noisy. Where are the farms that surrounded my home town a few decades ago? under tarmac and concrete, every one.
Meanwhile, further from London - I'm thinking mainly of the West Country but there are other places too - the society there is under strain since there are not enough jobs, any young people with get-up-and-go have got up and gone. How about a bit of prosperity in their general direction? (Scots may have some views on this.)
So an extra runway near London is good for the air travel industry and some people will make a lot of money out of it. How about thinking on what is good for the country as a whole?
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Security checks are understandable, up to a point; what annoys me is waiting in line to be allowed back into England.
I suppose it's fair enough for the US to check me in, although I notice that San Francisco airport has 49 slots to check people in, only 6, at best are manned for "aliens". Well that's their call, but Gatwick and Heathrow have hardly better staffing levels for the slots for English citizens.
Oh, and the last four times I've got on a plane in the USA or Canada my palms have been checked for something.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Swabbing for explosives residue.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Firenze: they're very difficult to hi-jack.
Not impossible though. But I do agree with you.
It was also attempted in New York City.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I used to live near Heathrow: when Terminal 4 was proposed local opposition was bought off with the promise that there wouldn't be any more expansion.
And that lasted until they opened Terminal 5.
Now they are proposing a third runway, which will likely entirely swallow the hamlet of Sipson. The village of Harmondsworth is also likely to vanish - including its rather fine 12/13th century church and the Great Barn. The Great Barn of Harmondsworth is the UKs largest tithe barn and is Grade I listed. Bearing in mind the grief that English Heritage and local conservation officers can cause to ordinary householders over something as trivial as re-painting a Grade II house, it will be interesting to see how either a government or the BAA proposes to go about wrecking one of Europe's great mediaeval buildings.
All of that is before you mention the subject of air quality, which around Heathrow is dire at the best of times but in the summer, when there is little wind, you can taste the aviation fuel in the air within 5 miles or so of the airport.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Actually the latest plans don't involve the destruction of Harmondsworth tithe barn, although a lot of the houses in the village would be knocked down. I work for an airline and Harmondsworth is directly behind our office.
My employer is very keen on the expansion of Heathrow but I prefer the Gatwick option. I agree with those who said that London could support two hub airports.
The big problem though is that far the largest operator at Gatwick is Easyjet, who have repeatedly said that they are not interested in being part of a hub operation, ie they don't want to operate longhaul flights, and don't want to interline with longhaul airlines. Interline meaning having a single ticket for a connecting journey. For various reasons people aren't going to use an airport as a hub if they have to buy separate tickets.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
Apparently Amsterdam is in a way Britain's hub airport. This link also suggests reasons why Manchester would be better suited.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
One of the reasons - if not the main reason - why Schipol is in the ascendant for everywhere outside the SE is the simple lack of capacity at Heathrow. You can have a short-hop flight in from Newcastle, or a long-haul flight to New York. You can't have both.
So one of the arguments for Heathrow expansion is to allow more regional flights in to serve the long-haul flights out.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Totally support investment in rail. We managed Edinburgh to Aix-en-Provence in one (long) day by train, and the slowest bit was undoubtedly the Edinburgh/London leg. The flight connections for the same journey were grim and would have left us no nearer than Marseille. But that apart, I like trains: they're comfortable and you can move about and they're very difficult to hi-jack.
When the Channel Tunnel was opened, I definitely remember promises of services from the North of England to the Continent. I remember artists' impressions of Eurostars in Manchester Piccadilly. What happened to that?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Someone decided to build a Eurostar Terminal in London rather than a station. Because no one really wants to go anywhere other than London, right?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
When the Channel Tunnel was opened, I definitely remember promises of services from the North of England to the Continent. I remember artists' impressions of Eurostars in Manchester Piccadilly. What happened to that?
I don't think Eurostar (or whatever it's called) has a franchise, ie licence to print money, for the Manchester route. Had it one, even restricted to travel to the continent, then the whining of Mike O'Leary would drown out that of the Ryanair planes.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the reasons - if not the main reason - why Schipol is in the ascendant for everywhere outside the SE is the simple lack of capacity at Heathrow. You can have a short-hop flight in from Newcastle, or a long-haul flight to New York. You can't have both.
So one of the arguments for Heathrow expansion is to allow more regional flights in to serve the long-haul flights out.
That's more regional flights that can't be handled at Gatwick, Luton, City or Stansted? Gatwick and Stansted can handle long-haul but the solution is to get planes out of the skies wherever possible, and removing the fuel subsidy is a start.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
When the Channel Tunnel was opened, I definitely remember promises of services from the North of England to the Continent. I remember artists' impressions of Eurostars in Manchester Piccadilly. What happened to that?
I don't think Eurostar (or whatever it's called) has a franchise, ie licence to print money, for the Manchester route. Had it one, even restricted to travel to the continent, then the whining of Mike O'Leary would drown out that of the Ryanair planes.
There were indeed supposed to be regional Eurostars (including sleeping cars). But the trains were very late in being delivered. The company ran fast connecting dedicated services from places like Manchester to Waterloo, but few people used them. Eventually those trains were withdrawn and the special stock - brand new - disposed of. Some went to Canada, others were (I think) scrapped without ever turning a wheel in service.
Why did this happen? Simple: cheap airline flights had arrived, which could get you from Manchester or Glasgow to the Continent in a few hours, rather than the 8-10 hours by train. his simply hadn't been expected when Eurostar was conceived. So blame RyanJet.
[ 03. July 2015, 12:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Although, in the absence of dedicated HS track from Waterloo to Manchester, Glasgow, Plymouth etc there was a definite limit to how "fast" any such dedicated service would have been - and, it would have still required a change in London. What's needed is to be able to get onto a HS train in Glasgow, and whizz through the Tunnel to Paris, Berlin or other European cities. OK, maybe with a change of train in Paris to other parts of the HS network. But to be stuck with substandard tracks to London, then change trains, and likely change again in Paris if you're heading somewhere else ... regardless of the cost of flying that's not a very pleasant option.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Put simply, a decent surface route on HS rail of less than 500 miles should always be preferable to flying. If HS rail had been given the subsidies and tax-payer investment that the airlines have enjoyed it would be an economic no-brainer.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Put simply, a decent surface route on HS rail of less than 500 miles should always be preferable to flying. If HS rail had been given the subsidies and tax-payer investment that the airlines have enjoyed it would be an economic no-brainer.
Yep, and for me it should never be an either/or. Why are there not regular HS trains from Heathrow to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Glasgow? Why are there not Eurostar services from Heathrow to Paris? Why no HS link between Stanstead, Luton, Heathrow and Gatwick?
That's what a sensisble transport policy would look like.
And if the advocates are right that (particularly in terms of cargo) Britian needs a world-hub airport rather than several medium-not-quite-hubs, then surely that's the way to make Heathrow really work for the whole country?
I've flown out of Heathrow a few times - I quite like it, it's a nice airport and I love the huge range of world-wide options and I love flying. But it's a pig to get to. And I just live in the South West, never mind if you from north of Birmingham!! It is also expensive to get to.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I have also connected through Schipol and Paris Charles de Gaulle and Franfurt. In each case, flying from a local regional UK airport into the hub. It's not really practical to do that from most of the UK to Heathrow - but with HS rail it could be both easy and pleasant.
Don't see it happening anytime soon though...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although, in the absence of dedicated HS track from Waterloo to Manchester, Glasgow, Plymouth etc there was a definite limit to how "fast" any such dedicated service would have been - and, it would have still required a change in London. What's needed is to be able to get onto a HS train in Glasgow, and whizz through the Tunnel to Paris, Berlin or other European cities
Agreed. But the "Regional Eurostar" and "Nightstar" services would have not required a change in London ... and they even appeared in the 1999 BR timetable, I believe.
/Rail nerd alert/ Of course, we had through sleeping-car trains from London to Paris as long ago as 1936. The coaches went on the ferry, so I doubt if one slept all that much, what with the shunting!
I did see the train once or twice, passing Folkestone in 1972 (also the late lamented "Golden Arrow" which didn't actually go onto the ferry). /Alert ends/.
[ 03. July 2015, 12:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I have also connected through Schipol and Paris Charles de Gaulle and Franfurt. In each case, flying from a local regional UK airport into the hub. It's not really practical to do that from most of the UK to Heathrow - but with HS rail it could be both easy and pleasant.
At one time (?about 15 years ago) some internal Lufthansa flights were actually made by train: from airport to airport. Very sensible.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
...I've flown out of Heathrow a few times - I quite like it, it's a nice airport and I love the huge range of world-wide options and I love flying. But it's a pig to get to. And I just live in the South West, never mind if you from north of Birmingham!! It is also expensive to get to. ....
Nor are Gatwick or Stanstead easy to get to - though none of them are as impossible for anyone except the London centred as the wretched Boris Island would be.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the reasons - if not the main reason - why Schipol is in the ascendant for everywhere outside the SE is the simple lack of capacity at Heathrow. You can have a short-hop flight in from Newcastle, or a long-haul flight to New York. You can't have both.
So one of the arguments for Heathrow expansion is to allow more regional flights in to serve the long-haul flights out.
That's more regional flights that can't be handled at Gatwick, Luton, City or Stansted? Gatwick and Stansted can handle long-haul but the solution is to get planes out of the skies wherever possible, and removing the fuel subsidy is a start.
Getting to Gatwick, Luton, City, Stansted or Heathrow from any of those airports should be quick and easy via non-stop HS trains. Gatwick-Heathrow is about 35 miles, and should take, what 20 mins to cover? Gatwick-Luton is 56 miles, Gatwick-Stansted is 60 miles.
Regional flights land at Stansted or Luton, half an hour later, you're at either Gatwick or Heathrow for the flight on. I think most people would wear that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
If the government were serious about their "northern powerhouse" (which they're not, nor do they seem to have much idea about where north actually is) then they would have been mooting expansion of Leeds/Bradford and Newcastle airports.
As I see the issue, they're weighing up "build it and they will come" with where demand currently is.
At the present, there is demand for more capacity in the south east, led by corporate interests. Yet if they chose to ignore that and build in the midlands and the north then it would help shift the demand a bit.
If they continue to build in the south east, then that just generates more demand and we end up with, or rather we already have, run(a)way demand that defies all sense.
When I lived a couple of miles from Gatwick, I had great fun watching the planes come and go while I did my washing up. Thankfully, I was south of the east-west runway so wasn't actually on the flight path.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Getting to Gatwick, Luton, City, Stansted or Heathrow from any of those airports should be quick and easy via non-stop HS trains. Gatwick-Heathrow is about 35 miles, and should take, what 20 mins to cover? Gatwick-Luton is 56 miles, Gatwick-Stansted is 60 miles.
Regional flights land at Stansted or Luton, half an hour later, you're at either Gatwick or Heathrow for the flight on. I think most people would wear that.
Or, even Heathrow to Birmingham International is less than 100 miles. Build that HS rail link and Birmingham becomes the extra runway for the SE of England.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
So all round, epic fail in regards building HS2 with Heathrow spur or through Birmingham or East Midlands airports then...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I have never used Heathrow as a hub; Schiphol is the same flying time from Aberdeen as Heathrow, and can be cheaper. Like alienfromzog, I've also used Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle as a hub. I haven't tried to avoid Heathrow, but it's never been the best option.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
