Rail links to a Thames Estuary Airport

[fergusjbend]

There are clearly many arguments for and against the building of a hub airport in the Thames Estuary, and I do not want to air them here. Rather, I would like to know members' views on the practicalities of rail links to such an airport in the event of it ever being built. I would like to suggest a few assumptions:

1. Links would be required to central London.
2. Links to central London would need to be high speed - say 125 to 140mph as a minimum.
3. Rail corridors would be needed on both banks of the Thames in Kent and Essex.
4. Other links to Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and the rest of the country would be highly desirable, if not essential. This would include HS1 and HS2.
5. The cost of the rail (and road) infrastructure is likely to dwarf the cost of building the airport itself.
6. The only existing rail link which could be adapted to serve the airport is HS1 from Ebbsfleet. It would need a tunnel under Gravesend to extend it to the Isle of Grain.
7. Crossrail is too slow to make it a practical link by way of an extension from Abbey Wood.
8. On the Essex shore a HS link would be needed from Southend to Rainham where it could join HS1.

Over to you!

Fergus

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Lord Fosters ideas for an estuary airport included an orbital railway line broadly following the M25 linking with the GEML, ECML, MML, WCML, HS2 and GWML alongside a loop of HS1. There would be 4 tracks, 2 high speed and 2 for stopping services/freight with parkway stations near motorway junctions. It would reach the airport and cross under the Thames by being integrated into a new follow flood defence barrier alongside a new motorway.

 

[Timster83]

Not entirely sure of the practicalities.. but just to add a few thoughts of my own

A link to HS1 to serve both the Channel Tunnel and Central London would seem like a reasonable solution for an express service. This could also potentially allow access to Heathrow and the rest of the country via an HS1 to HS2 link.

For slower connections, perhaps an extension to the Jubilee Line east of the dome could serve towns such as Dartford but also allow connections into London Bridge (with connections to Gatwick).

Gatwick Airport seems to be 30-40 miles from the site of this proposed airport. Maybe a maglev train like they have for Beijing airport could be useful here. This would also allow the possibility of transfers to Gatwick - which would allow passengers to enter the country via a traditional airline carrier and then switch to Gatwick which could act as a hub for low-cost airlines. More realistically, an offshoot of HS1 to link Gatwick to Central London, the new airport and the Channel Tunnel might be a feasible option.

Realistically, links to the likes of Stansted and Luton airport are not so feasible as I would imagine these would come at significant cost. Additionally, how many passengers would be likely to want to transfer from a proposed Thames Estuary Airport to somewhere so far away, when Gatwick is a more realistic option?

 

[Tobbes]

Lord Fosters ideas for an estuary airport included an orbital railway line broadly following the M25 linking with the GEML, ECML, MML, WCML, HS2 and GWML alongside a loop of HS1. There would be 4 tracks, 2 high speed and 2 for stopping services/freight with parkway stations near motorway junctions. It would reach the airport and cross under the Thames by being integrated into a new follow flood defence barrier alongside a new motorway.

Quite right. The main point of Foster's London Gateway is that the airport is almost the least of the elements of the proposal - the new Thames barrier is much more relevant as it will protect London - and Thameside Kent and Essex - from climate change-led sea level rise. This will need to be done anyway, but it isn't something that will ever be a priority until it is close to being too late.

5. The cost of the rail (and road) infrastructure is likely to dwarf the cost of building the airport itself.

Correct, Fergus. Last time I checked, it was £30 - 35bn for the airport, and at least the same again for the infrastructure, including the new Thames barrier and orbital railways etc etc.

When His Borisness tells the world that the airport can be funded privately (his chums in the City, presumably) what he means that the airport can be funded privately If (and only if) Heathrow is closed, providing a Hub monopoly, and the taxpayers funds the off-airport infrastructure. Not a great deal for the tax payers (like Hinkley C, and for the same reason.)

Tobbes

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Makes HS2 look a bargain!
I can't think of a project more disconnected with the rest of the UK.
The airport needs to be closer to the centre of gravity of the UK.
The 1970s proposal for Wing (Aylesbury) was about right.
HS2, and a WCML deviation, could pass the front door.

 

[jopsuk]

Certainly isn't going to happen- in the end Boris (or the office of the Mayor of London) put in a submission to the airport commisions proposing a four runway airport north of Stansted with a high speed railway to Waterloo.

 

[edwin_m]

The idea of a hub airport is to provide as many flights as possible from the same site, to maximise the benefits of interchange between flights. Therefore there would be relatively little demand for ground transport between the hub and other airports nearby - in fact the other airports would decrease in importance.

I don't think an M25 orbital would really make sense, as trains using this would miss the main market in central London. Much better to have a decent capacity HS2-HS1 link with a central London station rather like the railway Lords proposal but only for those trains going through to the airport. Possibly also a diversion of one of the eastern legs of Crossrail to provide service direct or with one change to most parts of London. By doing this the new site would be far better connected from the north than Heathrow is, despite being further away. A good service from the GWML would also be important to minimise the disbenefit from closing Heathrow.

I'm another one that doesn't think it's going to happen, because Heathrow has too much inertia to be simply relocated and because any new site would attract insuperable opposition. The surrounding areas mounted a highly effective campaign against a Wing airport when it was first proposed in the 60s, and I think the opposition to HS2 would be a fleabite compared to what might happen if it was suggested again.

 

[pablo]

I'm sat there right now and I can tell you it ain't goin to 'appen. Cos we're not moving!

As for your points:
1. Obviously.
2. Yes.
3. Not necessarily so.
4. No.
5. Yes.
6. No; branch and tunnel under Shorne and Higham.
7. No; not everyone is going to central London. What about the workers!
8. See 3 above.

All pie in the sky. See http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=332 and here http://www.pleiade.org/loxreport2013.html

 

[cle]

Never gonna happen, pointless scheme in the middle of nowhere and much worse for the bulk of the population, who live west and north of London.

Heathrow needs R3 and Gatwick needs R2. Stansted can't be a replacement, the train is too slow and it's already in decline. People don't use it enough. Awful place.

Also Heathrow underpins one of the best stretches of high-value employment and prosperity in the UK (Thames Valley/M4) - much more so than the Cambridge arc. Removing it would be a disaster for the whole region - wouldn't happen.

 

[Wolfie]

Never gonna happen, pointless scheme in the middle of nowhere and much worse for the bulk of the population, who live west and north of London.

Heathrow needs R3 and Gatwick needs R2. Stansted can't be a replacement, the train is too slow and it's already in decline. People don't use it enough. Awful place.

Also Heathrow underpins one of the best stretches of high-value employment and prosperity in the UK (Thames Valley/M4) - much more so than the Cambridge arc. Removing it would be a disaster for the whole region - wouldn't happen.

my bold

Ain't going to happen - would turn London into a living hell hole and I guarantee would be in the courts for years let alone direct action (count me in if necessary!).

Heathrow is in the wrong place and should have been closed years ago.

 

[IKBrunel]

Estuary makes no sense for road/rail interface, Heathrow probably makes nost economic sense but is a non starter on noise levels, Stansted is also arguably a bit too far east, but may end up being the lesser of 3 evils. Stansted will also need major new rail & road links to achieve similar access times as Heathrow.

But Stansted will suffer the same problem as estuary - will BA/Virgin etc want to switch their operations there in a 'free market'.

The new hub airport could prove to be as contentious as HS2 if not more so. You have local Nimbys combined with strong opposition from environmental groups.
I think I might still be the beneficial owner of a very tiny parcel of land in the middle of the proposed location of Heathrow R3 thanks to a Greenpeace campaign...

 

[Tetchytyke]

35% of all passengers at Heathrow are transit passengers, and 76% of those transit passengers are switching between two international flights. 17m out of the 70m annual passengers at Heathrow never cross the UK border. Other than spending a few quid in Tie Rack, it is unclear how these passengers benefit the UK economy at all.

Remove those transit passengers and Heathrow suddenly is nowhere near capacity, not that Heathrow like to publicise that very much.

Equally, it doesn't matter where a transit airport is actually situated, as passengers never leave the airport terminal.

Putting a purpose built airport out in the Thames Estuary, and stopping all those planes flying low over suburban London, might not be the stupidest idea ever. When- and it is when, not if- one of those comes down over North London, the death toll will be in the tens of thousands.

Hong Kong managed to relocate its international airport to reclaimed land miles from the city, and they did that at a time of huge political upheaval. It would be perfectly possible to close down Heathrow and replace it with reclaimed land out in the estuary, the question is whether the money can be found. I'd say it was more deserving of finance than HS2, for starters. I'd reckon it could be done for £120bn, which really is only ten times more than two weeks of running and jumping cost us.

 

[edwin_m]

The theory (which people may disagree with) is that having a "Hub airport" means there is a wide selection of flights attracted there by the possibility of transfers between them. This means that the locals have access to a longer list of destinations.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Makes HS2 look a bargain!
I can't think of a project more disconnected with the rest of the UK.
The airport needs to be closer to the centre of gravity of the UK.
The 1970s proposal for Wing (Aylesbury) was about right.
HS2, and a WCML deviation, could pass the front door.

Not gonna happen, the furore such a proposal would cause would make the augments over HS2 look like a storm in a teacup. Although runway 3 at Heathrow seems the best option I am not convinced it is going to be enough to allow Heathrow to retain its hub status long term given Paris CDG and Frankfurt both have 4 runways, and Schiphol has 6. How long until there are calls for a 4th runway? That leaves 3 options:-

1 A second runway at Gatwick - will this have any less opposition than at Heathrow?

2 Expansion of Stansted - Possible but would need new transport links like a HS rail line to cope with the increased demand, but where would this go after Stansted/Cambridge?

3 Thames Hub but again as I said previously would require expensive infrastructure to be put in place to serve the airport. Has the advantage though of allowing services via the channel tunnel and HS1 more easily than at any other propped location.

 

[HowardGWR]

This discussion seems to be in the wrong section as it is about infrastructure -ah well. It seems to me that the estuary airport needs a much more capable HS2 to HS1 link than at present envisaged and a connection across to Essex and Stansted would be handy.

 

[Chris125]

You can see TfL/Atkins proposal for linking London with Stansted or an Inner/Outer Estuary Airport in the following pdf submitted to the airports commission - Surface Access Technical Report

The maps on page 14/15/16 show the principal airport service being provided by a new line which could run from Waterloo to the various airport options via London Bridge, Canary Wharf and a new 'Thames Riverside' station providing interchange with HS1.

Certain services from the airport could also use spare paths on HS1 from Thames Riverside to access St Pancras/Old Oak Common/HS2.

Chris

 

[MidlandMainlie]

An interesting article in The Engineer about the Estuary Airport.

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-dep...swered-thames-estuary-airport/1017292.article

 

[edwin_m]

You can see TfL/Atkins proposal for linking London with Stansted or an Inner/Outer Estuary Airport in the following pdf submitted to the airports commission - Surface Access Technical Report

Just started reading this and discovered:

The purpose of this report is to provide the supporting evidence underpinning the Mayor’s stance on surface access for each of his three long term proposals for new hub airports

It probably wasn't meant to, but that sounds very much like deciding your policy first, then paying a consultant to come up with some evidence to justify it.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Heathrow is a disaster as it is. When air traffic approaches from the east (most of the time) planes turn and line up over east London, then fly low over central London before final approach (very low) over west London. One every 100 seconds, all day, every day. What right minded planner would design such a situation? It has come into existence bit by bit, "Disjointed incrementalism" we used to call it. One day, there will be an accident, a crash, the afflicted plane will fall on some part of London. It could be Hounslow, it could be Westminster. Only then will the political machinery engage and a SERIOUS investigation be done to find the best alternative site. Remember Roskill? That was a serious investigation, but what happened? Not much, Heathrow is still there.

 

[edwin_m]

Heathrow is a disaster as it is. When air traffic approaches from the east (most of the time) planes turn and line up over east London, then fly low over central London before final approach (very low) over west London. One every 100 seconds, all day, every day. What right minded planner would design such a situation? It has come into existence bit by bit, "Disjointed incrementalism" we used to call it. One day, there will be an accident, a crash, the afflicted plane will fall on some part of London. It could be Hounslow, it could be Westminster. Only then will the political machinery engage and a SERIOUS investigation be done to find the best alternative site. Remember Roskill? That was a serious investigation, but what happened? Not much, Heathrow is still there.

So the proposed solution is an airport east of London where most of the time planes will be passing over central London in their takeoff and climb phase, the most noisy and dangerous part of the flight.

 

[Bald Rick]

Please all refer to the opening sentence of the OPs post.

Anyway, from a railway point of view Gatwick is best bet for an additional runway. It should help with the funding needed to sort out Croydon / Windmill Bridge and thus unlock the latent capacity extant on the Brighton Main line.

(and ignoring my own advice, it's the easiest place to build a second runway from an environmental point of view)

 

[tbtc]

I'll avoid the "should we build such an airport" argument and focus on the "if we do build it" scenario:

1. Links would be required to central London

Definitely.

2. Links to central London would need to be high speed - say 125 to 140mph as a minimum

Not sure about that. Heathrow/ Gatwick/ Stansted don't get 125mph services - the only "London" Airport with 125mph trains is the EMT 222s at Luton I think (?).

I think a better question would be "what journey time would be realistic from the Airport to the London Underground Circle Line" (which seems a reasonable definition of central London). Would a twenty minute connection be sufficient? In which case, what speed are we talking about?

3. Rail corridors would be needed on both banks of the Thames in Kent and Essex

If you're going to do that then you are opening up a whole new dimension on rail travel in the South East - which may see an Airport as a minor part of an even bigger jigsaw.

4. Other links to Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and the rest of the country would be highly desirable, if not essential. This would include HS1 and HS2

Not sure about links to other airports being essential. Off the top of my head, the only service that currently links two UK Airports is the hourly XC service from Southampton Airport to Birmingham Airport (assuming you don't count Prestwick to Paisley for Glasgow Airport?).

You'd certainly want a Thames Estuary airport to have some connections to the rest of the UK, whether as part of HS2 or a revamped "Cross Country" network.

5. The cost of the rail (and road) infrastructure is likely to dwarf the cost of building the airport itself

Absolutely.

6. The only existing rail link which could be adapted to serve the airport is HS1 from Ebbsfleet. It would need a tunnel under Gravesend to extend it to the Isle of Grain

I don't know enough about the area to comment properly on this

7. Crossrail is too slow to make it a practical link by way of an extension from Abbey Wood

Its not just about central London though. Crossrail would be a link to the Docklands area. Don't know how long Crossrail would take though.

 

[marks87]

Not sure about links to other airports being essential. Off the top of my head, the only service that currently links two UK Airports is the hourly XC service from Southampton Airport to Birmingham Airport (assuming you don't count Prestwick to Paisley for Glasgow Airport?).

FCC between Luton and Gatwick?

 

[tbtc]

FCC between Luton and Gatwick?

:: slaps self repeatedly::