There is a regular National Express coach service between the two, so yes, there is a market.
I think it could be more that a coach to one airport on its own isn't going to be busy enough to fill fifty seats, but the flexibility of National Express means that they can tag on Gatwick too without huge disruption.
National Express are good at tagging additional bits onto the end of journeys, so that they can serve small markets that rail would never be economic in. For example, London - Newcastle runs through to places like Whitley Bay and Ashington at minimal extra cost. Those places would never justify a direct London service in their own right, but if you are running a London - Newcastle service then it doesn't cost much more to do.
One of life's greatest mysteries to me is the contingent of people obsessed with linking airports directly to each other with rail/whatever. I literally don't understand peoples' infatuation with it, nor the belief that the number of people involved warrants it.
See also ideas like the one where Crossrail should run Heathrow - Stansted and have a separate carriage for "airside" passengers who wanted to change planes without going through Customs... that was one of my favourites!
5. The underground is behaving itself.
You could say that what's proposed here isn't a good idea and a waste of time because of the amount of through traffic, but then again you could have that attitude to AXC and say about how many people actually do Glasgow or Edinburgh to Cheltenham/Bristol/Exeter/Plymouth or Penzance.
You could say that what's proposed here isn't a good idea and a waste of time because of the amount of through traffic, but then again you could have that attitude to AXC and say about how many people actually do Glasgow or Edinburgh to Cheltenham/Bristol/Exeter/Plymouth or Penzance.
True.
I've nothing against linking the two places on a bigger line, so that Gatwick would have a direct service to (say) Oxford and Heathrow would have a direct service to (say) Brighton, but I think that the "airport to airport" market gets over-egged on here.
A dedicated train will need somewhere between 50 and 100 passengers to be economic
I can think of a dozen recent threads where this should be quoted!
And I'd like to know the rationale of always going via London, which is generally more expensive, more awkward, congested and much harder to do compared to what would be a easier albeit slower method without any congestion, no stairs, interchanges on a through service?
I know that people don't like changing trains. It gets repeated enough on here (though with no real figures to back it up).
But the problem I have with the idea that changing at Farringdon (from a frequent Thameslink service to a frequent Crossrail service) isn't acceptable to Gatwick > Heathrow passengers is that...
...instead of getting a direct plane from A to Z...
...or getting a plane from A to an airport where you can easily change to a flight bound for Z...
...they've decided (for reasons of price or the esoteric nature of their journey) to fly from A to Gatwick and then get a train over to Heathrow for a flight to Z...
...but, despite them being prepared to do a journey that involves four separate airports (and an intermediate train), they would be put off by the prospect of changing from a frequent train service to another frequent train service?