Will Heathrow expansion mean more trains and lines?

[DynamicSpirit]

By the time any airtrack connection is built it will be the London Overground network and judging by the empty heathrow connects and expresses that either pull into or go through hayes, There appears to be excess capacity already.

I don't think that's excess capacity. It's partly that too many travellers know the prices on those trains are heavily marked up compared to the Piccadilly line and vote with their wallets And partly that Paddington isn't exactly the best located London terminus, and until Crossrail is built, there aren't that many parts of London for which using the Heathrow Connect/Expresses makes more sense than using the Piccadilly line.

 

[Busaholic]

The first thing the government should specify is that no connecting flight slots should be allowed at a distance of less than 400 kms, unless there are no rail connections possible from the nearest city (to the said airport) or island (e.g. Scilly Isles).

Please don't let the residents of Scilly fantasise about having a Heathrow service. Plans to resurrect the helicopter service to Penzance currently engage all their waking hours, fantasy though that may prove too.

 

[The Ham]

Everyone posting on this thread about links to Heathrow from south/south west should read this first (link kindly provided by hwl a page or so back):

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Southern-Rail-Access-to-Heathrow-Feasibility-Study.pdf

Within that document there was talk of running the services semi fast, so as to miss out some the more minor stations on the services to Guildford and Basingstoke.

On the latter, however, there also be services from Basingstoke via Reading. As such there would like time advantage of missing the first few stations (I.e. Hook and Winchfield) as passengers would likely use the via Reading services from Basingstoke.

If you are then running 2tph to those stations to Heathrow (calling at Farnborough and Woking) then it wouldn't be too bad (at least off peak) for those minor stations to loose one their two trains per hour direct to London, as they would be gaining in service frequency. That would mean more people changing get to London, but there would be some direct service and also it could be marginally quicker than using the direct services.

The path for that could then be used by the Alton services, so as to provide 3tph along both routes from Woking outwards, admittedly there might need to be a further reworking to get fairly equal spacing between services. However, would then mean that any extra paths created y Crossrail 2 wouldn't need to serve those stations. It would also remove some of the turn back requirements at Basingstoke.

It could however mean that the level crossing Farnham needs sorting and additional doubling running down to Alton.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the 'Two Lords' connection between HS2 and HS1 had seen favour, then your idea would be a runner. I suspect that the 'NIH' syndrome prevented government running with that one.

It wasn't so much NIH syndrome, but more about it not being physically possible without shifting some or all of the existing tube lines and various basements (eg British Library).

Crossrail 2 is earmarked for the last available space on an east-west alignment anywhere near Euston, and that only just squeezes in with 2 platforms tunnels.

 

[6Gman]

The 500 from Parkway to the airport claims to have luxury seats! Ha ha. Have you seen them? The 86A is your standard Enviro and the 80A (Which is what I get from my house to the airport) is whatever turns up.

Does the 500 serve Parkway? I think not.

 

[jon0844]

Seems like everybody here is fully convinced that Heathrow will be expanded according to the Government's suggested timetable.

Well, when you consider the WCML upgrade, Thameslink and HS2 what reason has anyone got to think otherwise?

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, when you consider the WCML upgrade, Thameslink and HS2 what reason has anyone got to think otherwise?

Quite. Given that the longest ever public inquiry* into a planning matter in this country was for terminal 5 - essentially a large garden shed on the site of a sewage works - I can't see how a new runway that demolishes whole tracts of London could possibly be quicker.

* Interesting fact. There were a few specially made commerative plates 'celebrating' the longest ever public inquiry. Whoever thought this was a good idea must have had a good sense of humour.

 

[6Gman]

Quite. Given that the longest ever public inquiry* into a planning matter in this country was for terminal 5 - essentially a large garden shed on the site of a sewage works - I can't see how a new runway that demolishes whole tracts of London could possibly be quicker.

* Interesting fact. There were a few specially made commerative plates 'celebrating' the longest ever public inquiry. Whoever thought this was a good idea must have had a good sense of humour.

Hasn't the procedure been "slimmed-down" since then though?

 

[Bald Rick]

Hasn't the procedure been "slimmed-down" since then though?

The procedure has. Although it has yet to be tested on a project of this size. And then there's the legal challenges...

 

[jon0844]

The procedure has. Although it has yet to be tested on a project of this size. And then there's the legal challenges...

We don't want to take too long though, as Boris did promise to lay down in front of the bulldozers. On that basis alone, we should start construction next week at the latest.

 

[Busaholic]

We don't want to take too long though, as Boris did promise to lay down in front of the bulldozers. On that basis alone, we should start construction next week at the latest.

In the unpublished second statement Boris said he'd be willing to operate the bulldozer himself, just so long as he was P.M. at the time.

 

[jon0844]

In the unpublished second statement Boris said he'd be willing to operate the bulldozer himself, just so long as he was P.M. at the time.

Ah, yes. I forgot that Boris somehow manages to have his alternative universe version living in the same universe.

 

[tsangpogorge]

Going slightly off topic, expansion itself is still far from a given and even any preliminary work ought to be postponed until the whole post Brexit future can be determined. The big banks and financial services, the driving force of London and the south east's economy are already transferring some operations on to the continent and with a hard Brexit looking more and more likely there will be little to no reason to invest in infrastructure upgrades. An expanded Heathrow could end up a complete white elephant.

 

[thenorthern]

Given the amount of freight that comes into the United Kingdom via Heathrow is there a freight link to Heathrow? Also if freight traffic to the airport increases will there be a freight supr built if there isn't one?

On the subject of freight I think East Midlands Airport is the second largest airport for freight and its the largest airport with no night restrictions in the country which is probably why its a great airport.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given the amount of freight that comes into the United Kingdom via Heathrow is there a freight link to Heathrow? Also if freight traffic to the airport increases will there be a freight supr built if there isn't one?

In a word - no x 2.

The freight that comes in to Heathrow could all be easily accommodated on 2 container trains per day with plenty of space to spare.

Q1 - how would it get from being packed in air containers, or lose packed in the aircraft hold, into a form that could be easily handled by rail ie standard ISO containers?

Q2 - where would those 2 container trains per day go to?

Q3 - at what time of day would the two container trains depart?

 

[route:oxford]

Going slightly off topic, expansion itself is still far from a given and even any preliminary work ought to be postponed until the whole post Brexit future can be determined. The big banks and financial services, the driving force of London and the south east's economy are already transferring some operations on to the continent and with a hard Brexit looking more and more likely there will be little to no reason to invest in infrastructure upgrades. An expanded Heathrow could end up a complete white elephant.

No.

Some of the greatest problems this country faces, particularly with infrastructure, is for the want of doing something at least a decade earlier.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There would probably be a case for building a spur off the existing airport branch to bring in all the construction aggregates etc for the new runway and associated works but any movements would have to be at night as the branch is very heavily used during the day.

 

[edwin_m]

There would probably be a case for building a spur off the existing airport branch to bring in all the construction aggregates etc for the new runway and associated works but any movements would have to be at night as the branch is very heavily used during the day.

Colnbrook was used to bring in materials for Terminal 5 IIRC. It looks like it will be obliterated by the new runway but hopefully it will be possible to use it for most of the construction materials before that happens. Or perhaps even find some way of keeping an equivalent facility nearby in the area that's too noisy for any other use? This would be as a general London-area terminal rather than specifically for air freight where as mentioned the volumes are too small for rail.

 

[RobShipway]

Colnbrook was used to bring in materials for Terminal 5 IIRC. It looks like it will be obliterated by the new runway but hopefully it will be possible to use it for most of the construction materials before that happens. Or perhaps even find some way of keeping an equivalent facility nearby in the area that's too noisy for any other use? This would be as a general London-area terminal rather than specifically for air freight where as mentioned the volumes are too small for rail.

I know that part of the runway will be built over the M4 motorway, so could the connection to Colnbrook be kept with going under the M4/Runway into a tunnel?

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

Quite. Given that the longest ever public inquiry* into a planning matter in this country was for terminal 5 - essentially a large garden shed on the site of a sewage works - I can't see how a new runway that demolishes whole tracts of London could possibly be quicker.

* Interesting fact. There were a few specially made commerative plates 'celebrating' the longest ever public inquiry. Whoever thought this was a good idea must have had a good sense of humour.

Talking of terminal 5 wasn't one of the promises made at that enquiry that Heathrow would never ask for a 3rd runway?

 

[Wolfie]

Talking of terminal 5 wasn't one of the promises made at that enquiry that Heathrow would never ask for a 3rd runway?

Yes. Indeed Heathrow's catalogue of broken promises is why most Londoners completely oppose expansion. Friends of the Earth put together a wonderful briefing document back in 2009...

https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/heathrow_broken_promises.pdf

Also the BBC looked at this "Heathrow Airport communities wary of more promises":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36315344

 

[daikilo]

In a word - no x 2.

The freight that comes in to Heathrow could all be easily accommodated on 2 container trains per day with plenty of space to spare.

Q1 - how would it get from being packed in air containers, or lose packed in the aircraft hold, into a form that could be easily handled by rail ie standard ISO containers?

Q2 - where would those 2 container trains per day go to?

Q3 - at what time of day would the two container trains depart?

Air Freight is carried either on main-deck boxes/pallets or lower-deck containers/pallets. The overall width of the largest standard box/pallet/container is 96 inches which is what an ISO container is. However, for load protection reasons I would expect a covered wagon to be needed. In addition, all units have corner locks over the baseplat to hold them down (i.e. not turnlocks as used on current container trains).

The real issue is that most air-freight is time-sensitive and is rarely a bulk flow, so rail is generally not the right solution for inward or outward airport flows. Indeed, I can think of no airport with a rail connection for that purpose.

 

[gsnedders]

The first thing the government should specify is that no connecting flight slots should be allowed at a distance of less than 400 kms, unless there are no rail connections possible from the nearest city (to the said airport) or island (e.g. Scilly Isles). Also, if rail can provide a 5 hour connection, then those slots should be ceded to long distance. Actually, if we stay in the EU, then that could be an EU agreement.

I expect there is a hole in this pro-environment suggestion, so please fill it for me, if need be.

I'll point out that if the train is delayed and one misses a flight as a result, one is almost certainly out of pocket, unless the train can be booked as a "flight" and the airline guarantees the connection, or if one somehow has a travel insurance policy that guarantees such connections (and I don't think I've ever seen one that does!)—so the cost of missing such a connection is far, far higher than the cost of missing a connection within the airport. (Local trains are actually far less of a risk here, as falling back to a taxi is almost always doable without costing much journey time, as the average speed of the train is so much lower.)

 

[AM9]

I'll point out that if the train is delayed and one misses a flight as a result, one is almost certainly out of pocket, unless the train can be booked as a "flight" and the airline guarantees the connection, or if one somehow has a travel insurance policy that guarantees such connections (and I don't think I've ever seen one that does!)—so the cost of missing such a connection is far, far higher than the cost of missing a connection within the airport. (Local trains are actually far less of a risk here, as falling back to a taxi is almost always doable without costing much journey time, as the average speed of the train is so much lower.)

Maybe there could some form of CIV type scheme where designated connections between trains and flights would qualify passengers some recompense if they missed a connection. With brexit, I doubt that a UK government would be interested though, - they are more interested in the rights of the carrier.

 

[gsnedders]

Maybe there could some form of CIV type scheme where designated connections between trains and flights would qualify passengers some recompense if they missed a connection. With brexit, I doubt that a UK government would be interested though, - they are more interested in the rights of the carrier.

There are already a number of trains around the world which have flight numbers, with stations having IATA indices, and through tickets being sold. See for example AlRail in Germany, where, e.g., Köln–Frankfurt ICE tickets can be sold as connecting segments on a Lufthansa flight.

 

[Trailfinder]

For information.

On the models of the 'Future Heathrow' on display in the Heathrow staff restaurants, the following are visible:
1. Lines representing both the western rail access and the south western rail access.
2. Terminal 6 to the west of T5, connected to a satellite terminal (T6B) to the north of the northern runway (27R/09L).
3. Another satellite T5D is added to T5.
4. Terminal 3 disappears
5. Terminal 2 is extended northwards over the now disused T1.
6. Another satellite T2C is added to T2.

When all that is done, the terminals are then likely to be named West, East and South rather than the current numbers.

 

[didcotdean]

I remember an American pilot once making an announcement when leaving Heathrow along the lines of 'sorry for the slow and long taxi to the runway - this was to get around the ongoing airport construction that started at the end of World War 2. We are hoping this will be completed in about thirty years time.'

 

[urbophile]

I think something will be built to go further but isnt the idea of it being a hub is that you fly in from regional airports to connect onto others thus negating people from far and away within reason, to actually have to get a train there?

Wouldn't it be more sensible to have the 'hub' in a less overcrowded part of the country and link it to the capital and elsewhere with high-speed trains? That sort of joined-up thinking might even begin to justify HS2.

 

[gsnedders]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to have the 'hub' in a less overcrowded part of the country and link it to the capital and elsewhere with high-speed trains? That sort of joined-up thinking might even begin to justify HS2.

There's a limit to how far away you can go without hurting business travellers. Obviously with such a sparse city such as London one has to really choose a starting point (Luton/Gatwick/Stansted); if one goes for the City, you're unlikely to get much further out than current airports, at least unless you provide plenty of capacity for (time-sensitive) short-haul flights for businessmen travelling for the day at some closer airport.

 

[HowardGWR]

I'll point out that if the train is delayed and one misses a flight as a result, one is almost certainly out of pocket, unless the train can be booked as a "flight" and the airline guarantees the connection, or if one somehow has a travel insurance policy that guarantees such connections (and I don't think I've ever seen one that does!)—so the cost of missing such a connection is far, far higher than the cost of missing a connection within the airport. (Local trains are actually far less of a risk here, as falling back to a taxi is almost always doable without costing much journey time, as the average speed of the train is so much lower.)

My proposed legislation would take care of that.