The next UK HSR (High Speed Rail) project?

[Bald Rick]

Unfortunately at least one of the engineers behind HS2 does not appear to grasp this, with consequences which do no favours to his professional reputation.

I think you mean HSUK, rather than HS2, but great post.

 

[HSTEd]

Well given how badly botched land estimation seems to have been on HS2, perhaps both?

 

[quantinghome]

I think you mean HSUK, rather than HS2, but great post.

Oops yes, I did. Now corrected. Thank you.

 

[Shrop]

If you want to look at how to go about offering a counterproposal to the route of a high speed line, Arup's work on HS1 is an exemplar. Arup had the breadth of professional expertise and understood the need to get political buy-in. HSUK have none of this. Even if their proposals had merit (and having looked at them for some years now I really don't think they do), they have gone about it in a completely counterproductive way. What is really telling is that no engineering design firm has picked up their proposal. If their ideas had such obvious merit, you would expect Arup or somebody to bring them on board and develop the concept.

Are you sure you're asking the right question? Arup are in the business of making money, so if Government was already making noises about supporting HS2, then that's the place they would want to be, and the last thing they would do at that stage would be to assess the merits of a different project. I really don't see why any other engineering firm would be wanting to support a project different to that where Government has already shown every sign of putting its money.

The time the HSUK proposals should have been assessed was before HS2 was the favoured route, when it would have been an option for Government and engineering firms to cherry pick bits out of HSUK (and other ideas that were dismissed) and develop them to best advantage, whilst paying off its designers. I'll say again, I'm not a supporter of the whole HSUK project, but as a base concept I still firmly believe it has a lot more going for it than HS2. And I repeat too, HS2 was too focussed on the importance of Heathrow when it went through the critical mass of gaining Government support.

If Government and others had looked at this properly before 2010, WITHOUT the Heathrow influence, and with a focus on the future needs of railways for the UK as a whole rather than simply relieving WCML, we might now have a much more promising future for our railway system. As it is, the public despair about HS2 may make it very difficult to get support for any further big rail projects.

 

[Bald Rick]

The time the HSUK proposals should have been assessed was before HS2 was the favoured route,

as I’ve said before - what became HS2 considered all manner of routes and options before the favoured corridor was selected. I personally looked at routes up the east side and near the M1 in the very early days, indeed had to persuade some very senior people that ‘west is best’ as, frankly, that was where the socio-economic benefit is, by far.

HSUK came about in reaction to HS2, ie after all this work was already done. Why do it again? Or more accurately, why use the workings of two retired engineers with nothing better to do with a month or two of their time, than use the work you’ve already done using the time of dozens of transport planners, environmental specialists, economic modellers and engineers over a year or more? Why would you do it?

If Government and others had looked at this properly before 2010, WITHOUT the Heathrow influence, and with a focus on the future needs of railways for the UK as a whole rather than simply relieving WCML, we might now have a much more promising future for our railway system.

Had Government done this, again, ie spent money looking at something it had already looked at, and taken leave of its senses and pursued it, it wouldn’t have happened, as it would fail the economic tests, and have the whole country against it as the impact on local dtakeholders would be far more widespread and far more disruptive.

you’ll have to trust me, HS2 was the right answer then and is the right answer now. All those independent reviews can’t be wrong!

 

[krus_aragon]

London to Holyhead is a smidge under 300 miles, with HS2 lets say that's possible in 1.5 hours. The current Fast Ferry takes 2h15 hours to Dublin. So total travel time of 3h45 hours + (say) 20 mins checkin, for 4h05 mins total.
Ryanair offer 1h15 flights from Gatwick, which is itself 20-30 mins from Victoria. Allowing 1hr for check-in to be generous, and taking a rough transfer time of Dublin Airport to City Centre of 30mins, you're left with 45 mins to get from gate to taxi rank and still beat the ferry.

Back in the 90s, when Stena's HSS was run at full-speed making 5 or 6 return crossings a day, the advertised crossing time was 99 minutes. (Slightly better, but still not that competitive with the plane.)

 

[Shrop]

as I’ve said before - what became HS2 considered all manner of routes and options before the favoured corridor was selected. I personally looked at routes up the east side and near the M1 in the very early days, indeed had to persuade some very senior people that ‘west is best’ as, frankly, that was where the socio-economic benefit is, by far.

HSUK came about in reaction to HS2, ie after all this work was already done. Why do it again? Or more accurately, why use the workings of two retired engineers with nothing better to do with a month or two of their time, than use the work you’ve already done using the time of dozens of transport planners, environmental specialists, economic modellers and engineers over a year or more? Why would you do it?

Had Government done this, again, ie spent money looking at something it had already looked at, and taken leave of its senses and pursued it, it wouldn’t have happened, as it would fail the economic tests, and have the whole country against it as the impact on local dtakeholders would be far more widespread and far more disruptive.

you’ll have to trust me, HS2 was the right answer then and is the right answer now. All those independent reviews can’t be wrong!

I've seen all of this and I understand it, and I see why you're so supportive of the HS2 route, but with all due respect, have you not always seen this purely in the context of the route having to have Heathrow as a major priority?
So my question as above remains, ie if Government and others had looked at this from the outset with their top priority as the future needs of railways for the UK as a whole rather than simply relieving WCML, and with Heathrow being served similarly to how it is in the HSUK proposal rather than being top priority, would the route really still have gone through the Chilterns?

 

[ABB125]

So my question as above remains, ie if Government and others had looked at this from the outset with their top priority as the future needs of railways for the UK as a whole rather than simply relieving WCML, and with Heathrow being served similarly to how it is in the HSUK proposal rather than being top priority, would the route really still have gone through the Chilterns?

If (one of) the objective(s) was to serve Heathrow, where else would the line go?

Here is a map with some straight lines drawn on it. There's very little difference between going via (near) Heathrow and not.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've seen all of this and I understand it, and I see why you're so supportive of the HS2 route, but with all due respect, have you not always seen this purely in the context of the route having to have Heathrow as a major priority?

No - as I said above the early work looked at all sorts of routes and options. Difficult to serve Heathrow on a route up the east side of the country...

But, like it or not, Heathrow is a big generator of (domestic) long distance traffic, both by surface transport and air. Capturing a slice of that market is worth big bucks. Therefore, when taking an initial look at options, a route that could somehow serve Heathrow was chosen. I wouldn’t say it was top priority though. Top priority was serving London - West Mids conurbation - with a fast connection onto the North West and Scotland. This is where the greatest economic activity is, where the existing transport routes are most congested, and where the greatest benefits are. Heathrow - being very nearly on the way, adds to the case.

So my question as above remains, ie if Government and others had looked at this from the outset with their top priority as the future needs of railways for the UK as a whole rather than simply relieving WCML, and with Heathrow being served similarly to how it is in the HSUK proposal rather than being top priority, would the route really still have gone through the Chilterns?

Yes. Given that the Chiltern hills stretch to Hitchin, as anyone who has cycled up Hexton will testify. There is no doubt the line would have gone through the Chilterns, and dozens of route options to do that were looked at. The one selected was the best compromise.

 

[quantinghome]

Are you sure you're asking the right question? Arup are in the business of making money, so if Government was already making noises about supporting HS2, then that's the place they would want to be, and the last thing they would do at that stage would be to assess the merits of a different project. I really don't see why any other engineering firm would be wanting to support a project different to that where Government has already shown every sign of putting its money.

Arup is employee-owned via a trust, so while it is in the business of making money it has no shareholders to answer to. This gives it considerable leeway to develop alternative proposals and then lobby for them. It did this very successfully on HS1, despite the government's previously preferred route being quite well-advanced. If anyone was going to offer a viable alternative to HS2 it would have been Arup. But they didn't. Why didn't they, if they had done so successfully with HS1? There was nothing stopping them doing the same for HS2, other than that they didn't see any merit in the alternatives.

 

[Shrop]

No - as I said above the early work looked at all sorts of routes and options. Difficult to serve Heathrow on a route up the east side of the country...

That sounds like your confirmation that Heathrow was paramount. As do your next comments.

But, like it or not, Heathrow is a big generator of (domestic) long distance traffic, both by surface transport and air. Capturing a slice of that market is worth big bucks. Therefore, when taking an initial look at options, a route that could somehow serve Heathrow was chosen. I wouldn’t say it was top priority though. Top priority was serving London - West Mids conurbation - with a fast connection onto the North West and Scotland. This is where the greatest economic activity is, where the existing transport routes are most congested, and where the greatest benefits are. Heathrow - being very nearly on the way, adds to the case.

So from your work on the project, what percentage of HS2 users will want to use Heathrow, in preference to Birmingham (or Manchester)? Noting that HS2 will go somewhere near to Heathrow a while after leaving Birmingham. And noting that Birmingham has a much less onerous airport than Heathrow, which serves many of the European and a good few other places that Heathrow does. Similar comments about Manchester too, which serves even more of the European and many further afield places that Heathrow does. You say this is big bucks, but just how big?

Yes. Given that the Chiltern hills stretch to Hitchin, as anyone who has cycled up Hexton will testify. There is no doubt the line would have gone through the Chilterns

You and I both know this is a flippant comment, and that I was referring to the chosen HS2 route.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2022 ==

Arup is employee-owned via a trust, so while it is in the business of making money it has no shareholders to answer to. This gives it considerable leeway to develop alternative proposals and then lobby for them. It did this very successfully on HS1, despite the government's previously preferred route being quite well-advanced. If anyone was going to offer a viable alternative to HS2 it would have been Arup. But they didn't. Why didn't they, if they had done so successfully with HS1? There was nothing stopping them doing the same for HS2, other than that they didn't see any merit in the alternatives.

Because, as others in this thread have said, Government wanted it to serve Heathrow.

 

[quantinghome]

Because, as others in this thread have said, Government wanted it to serve Heathrow.

You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. Arup put forward an alternative to HS1. They changed they government's mind on the HS1 route by convincing them that there was a better option. They could have done the same on HS2 if they had felt so inclined. There was nothing to stop them. Arup pride themselves on thinking outside the box, doing stuff that other companies wouldn't or couldn't. If they thought there was a convincing case for a different route, it wouldn't have mattered to them what the government's initial preferences were. They'd convinced the government to change its mind on HS1, why not HS2?

The fact is that despite many alternatives being considered during the early stages, no serious engineering alternative to HS2 has emerged. This is a strong indication that the HS2 route is broadly correct (or was until they cut the eastern leg, but that's a different story).

 

[Bald Rick]

That sounds like your confirmation that Heathrow was paramount. As do your next comments.

So from your work on the project, what percentage of HS2 users will want to use Heathrow, in preference to Birmingham (or Manchester)? Noting that HS2 will go somewhere near to Heathrow a while after leaving Birmingham. And noting that Birmingham has a much less onerous airport than Heathrow, which serves many of the European and a good few other places that Heathrow does. Similar comments about Manchester too, which serves even more of the European and many further afield places that Heathrow does. You say this is big bucks, but just how big?

You and I both know this is a flippant comment, and that I was referring to the chosen HS2 route.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2022 ==


Because, as others in this thread have said, Government wanted it to serve Heathrow.

I’m sorry, I’m not explaining this well. I’ll put it very simply.

Heathrow was not ‘predominant’, which I take to mean ‘the line must go to or near Heathrow’ from the outset.

At the outset, the question was “is there a case for high speed rail in this country, and if so, where would be the best place to do so”. After much analysis (by at least three separate organisations, at different times) the answer was London - West Mids - NW England - towards Scotland. The analysis demonstrated that access to Heathrow would generate additional traffic if it could be served.

Therefore after the initial analysis (which took place over a couple of years, and well before the HS2 report linked above was published) it was decided that the route should aim to capture some Heathrow traffic.

Perhaps it is the timings that aren’t clear - the initial analysis on route options, markets to be served, etc was all done well before HS2 was even inaugurated as an organisation. So what I’m saying is that the work you are suggesting should have been done (examining other options, similar to what HSUK have proposed) was done. In some depth. Rather more depth than HSUK to be honest.


In terms of passenger numbers / values to /from Heathrow, well that’s a combination of commercially sensitive and old data (well over a decade old), so I can’t put it here. (Or even know where it is, if I’m honest).

However what I can say, from my experience, is that there is a big passenger flow to Heathrow from all parts of the country, notwithstanding regional airports connections to Europe. This is mostly about long haul - as you rightly say Birmingham and Manchester both have reasonable connections to Europe, but Heathrow is predominantly long haul, and has many, many more routes all over the world. Manchester has some daily flights to principal long haul destinations (New York, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Orlando, Toronto etc); Birmingham has Dubai, a couple of flights to India and thats about it. Heathrow has hundreds of long haul flights daily and that translates to thousands of passengers a day to/from the Midlands and North West.

From Manchester, something like 70-80% of domestic passengers to Heathrow are connecting there. They will almost certainly all be on the train in 10 years time. Albeit that’s another subject.

 

[MattRat]

I've seen all of this and I understand it, and I see why you're so supportive of the HS2 route, but with all due respect, have you not always seen this purely in the context of the route having to have Heathrow as a major priority?
So my question as above remains, ie if Government and others had looked at this from the outset with their top priority as the future needs of railways for the UK as a whole rather than simply relieving WCML, and with Heathrow being served similarly to how it is in the HSUK proposal rather than being top priority, would the route really still have gone through the Chilterns?

If (one of) the objective(s) was to serve Heathrow, where else would the line go?

Here is a map with some straight lines drawn on it. There's very little difference between going via (near) Heathrow and not.
View attachment 109633

Well it's all about cities served. The important ones being Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, York and Liverpool. But not just to London, to each other as well. We can all agree HS2 has failed at that, but how would you best serve all of them, with as little cost as possible?

 

[The Ham]

Well it's all about cities served. The important ones being Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, York and Liverpool. But not just to London, to each other as well. We can all agree HS2 has failed at that, but how would you best serve all of them, with as little cost as possible?

By building HS3/NPR and improvements to the link between Sheffield and York.

The "problem" with HS2 which HSUK tries to deal with is doing everything, which no single project should ever try to do.

 

[Shrop]

From Manchester, something like 70-80% of domestic passengers to Heathrow are connecting there. They will almost certainly all be on the train in 10 years time. Albeit that’s another subject.

You may say this is another subject, but it's actually very relevant to this discussion.

You're suggesting that passengers heading from Manchester to Heathrow will migrate towards rail travel to get between Manchester and London. This seems a little hopeful when there's a perfectly good airport in Manchester which has numerous daily flights directly into Heathrow, so why would passengers migrate towards rail travel for this part of their journey?

But okay, let's assume that they will for whatever reason, eg. encouragement of sustainable travel. In which case how can you possibly follow this line of thinking without applying it to travel from the UK to mainland Europe? And the cancelling of the HS2-HS1 link?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2022 ==

The "problem" with HS2 which HSUK tries to deal with is doing everything, which no single project should ever try to do.

Why are you calling HSUK a single project? I've never disagreed with people who have said HSUK wasn't presented as well as it might have been, what I've said is that some of it had merit which should have been used to advantage for the benefit of UK railways as a whole. Which means that HSUK, or a project loosely based on it, should have been seen as a first stage (eg. London to Yorkshire) of a bigger project. Seeing HSUK only in its entirety is an unnecessary distraction.

 

[quantinghome]

Why are you calling HSUK a single project? I've never disagreed with people who have said HSUK wasn't presented as well as it might have been, what I've said is that some of it had merit which should have been used to advantage for the benefit of UK railways as a whole. Which means that HSUK, or a project loosely based on it, should have been seen as a first stage (eg. London to Yorkshire) of a bigger project. Seeing HSUK only in its entirety is an unnecessary distraction.

HSUK's own authors conceive it as a single project. They make a big song and dance that it serves the whole of the country - contrasting it with HS2 which they allege has a more limited scope. So I'm not sure why you would want to split it down into stages. If you're doing that, you also need to treat HS2 as a first stage of a national network, otherwise you're not making a valid comparison.

 

[Meerkat]

You're suggesting that passengers heading from Manchester to Heathrow will migrate towards rail travel to get between Manchester and London.

Isnt there a decent chance of airport traffic the other way? If you can get from London to Birmingham (and maybe Manchester) airports in a decent time there may be a flow of passengers such that airlines fly long haul from those airports with more (and presumably cheaper) slots available??

 

[quantinghome]

Isnt there a decent chance of airport traffic the other way? If you can get from London to Birmingham (and maybe Manchester) airports in a decent time there may be a flow of passengers such that airlines fly long haul from those airports with more (and presumably cheaper) slots available??

London already has several airports with cheaper slots than Heathrow - Gatwick, Stansted, Luton. But I guess someone living in West London would find it more convenient to use OOC to get to Birmingham or Manchester airports than travelling to the alternatives around London. I doubt it would be for long haul flights though - Heathrow dominates that market. It's more likely to be short haul to holiday destinations.

 

[Meerkat]

London already has several airports with cheaper slots than Heathrow - Gatwick, Stansted, Luton. But I guess someone living in West London would find it more convenient to use OOC to get to Birmingham or Manchester airports than travelling to the alternatives around London. I doubt it would be for long haul flights though - Heathrow dominates that market. It's more likely to be short haul to holiday destinations.

True, but Birmingham will have its own market plus some of London and eventually Manchester and the East Midlands, so flights from there will become more viable.

 

[quantinghome]

True, but Birmingham will have its own market plus some of London and eventually Manchester and the East Midlands, so flights from there will become more viable.

I think the reverse will happen. With current surface transport links, only one major international hub airport has developed in the UK. HS2 will effectively merge the demand for air travel from London, Birmingham, East Midlands and Manchester into a single market (it could be argued the UK already is a single market as far as long haul goes). This will encourage further specialisation in the markets each airport serves. Birmingham may attract some passengers from London, but the reverse will also happen. Long haul operators will look to consolidate operations. The only impediment would be maxing out capacity at Heathrow and the 3rd runway being canned. But in that case the first operators moving from Heathrow to Birmingham or Manchester would be short haul.

 

[Shrop]

HSUK's own authors conceive it as a single project. They make a big song and dance that it serves the whole of the country - contrasting it with HS2 which they allege has a more limited scope. So I'm not sure why you would want to split it down into stages. If you're doing that, you also need to treat HS2 as a first stage of a national network, otherwise you're not making a valid comparison.

HS2 SHOULD have been the first stage of a bigger network, which is why HS3 was talked about later, and HS4 etc. HS2 SHOULD have been designed with the NW, Yorkshire, the NE, Scotland etc as subsequent parts of the same big project, to be developed when funding could be found. But in practice it was seen and promoted as a single project to run only to Birmingham, necessarily with a link to Heathrow, to relieve WCML, and with Manchester as a possible add-on. Perhaps someone might correct me, but I didn't think there was much, if any interest in any sort of an eventual HS network for the UK, when HS2 was being pushed prior to 2010.

 

[quantinghome]

But in practice it was seen and promoted as a single project to run only to Birmingham, necessarily with a link to Heathrow, to relieve WCML, and with Manchester as a possible add-on. Perhaps someone might correct me, but I didn't think there was much, if any interest in any sort of an eventual HS network for the UK, when HS2 was being pushed prior to 2010.

You're applying a very particular spin to promote your prejudged views on the motivations behind HS2. And it's self-contradicting. How can it run "only to Birmingham" also have "Manchester as a possible add-on"?

Other forum members have pointed out that there was nothing particularly "necessary" about a link to Heathrow - the fact that a direct link to Heathrow was dropped from the plans is testament to that. It was simply that it became apparent that a terminus at Euston wouldn't be enough to handle the number of passengers, so a second station was needed, and OOC fit the bill in terms of useful connections (connections which include, but are by no means limited to, Heathrow).

Given the population distribution of Great Britain, and the sections of the rail network most in need of congestion relief, it's pretty obvious that London - West Midlands would be the priority for a first stage, and would also form the spine of an eventual network.

HS2 was always planned to extend beyond Birmingham. The route for phase 1 London - West Midlands was published first in 2010, with connections to the north included, with the rest of the network route to Manchester and Leeds following in 2012. There was never a point when it was planned only to serve Birmingham. I really don't know why you believe this is the case, and persist in making the claim despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Bald Rick]

You're suggesting that passengers heading from Manchester to Heathrow will migrate towards rail travel to get between Manchester and London. This seems a little hopeful when there's a perfectly good airport in Manchester which has numerous daily flights directly into Heathrow, so why would passengers migrate towards rail travel for this part of their journey?

For starters, not all Manchester to Heathrow passengers catch the plane. Some drive, some get the coach, some get the train. Nevertheless there’s still 1,500 air passengers a day between the two (pre covid) which is worth £40-50m a year.

Next, ‘numerous’ = 5 flights a day each way, with some necessarily big gaps. HS2 will have a service every 20 minutes. If you are on a 2130 flight out of Heathrow, you need to be at Manchester Airport around 1500; alternatively you could get the train from Manchester Airport HS2 station around 3 hours later.

But most importantly, it will be a minimum of an hour quicker by HS2 than by plane, when you take into account check in / security time and minimum connection times at Heathrow / OOC. This is based on a common journey to Manchester Airport / Manchester Airport HS2 station. For many people across the North West it will be even quicker due to being closer to Piccadilly (or another station served by HS2 trains) than the airport. It is also likely to be cheaper for most times of day / week, once built those seats will need filling.

It’s also reasonable to assume that with the rail journeytime reducing so significantly, people who drive from the Midlands and North West are more likely to switch to HS2. Some won’t of course - but some will.

But okay, let's assume that they will for whatever reason, eg. encouragement of sustainable travel. In which case how can you possibly follow this line of thinking without applying it to travel from the UK to mainland Europe? And the cancelling of the HS2-HS1 link?

I’m not sure I follow the logic, but if it is “if you believe high speed rail will reduce flights between Manchester and Heathrow, therefore why wouldn’t it reduce flights between Manchester and Europe?” ... there’s three answers:

1) it would, but not by much. Unfortunately not enough to justify building a difficult and expensive link.
2) there’s very few Manchester - Europe air flows more than Manchester - Heathrow: Dublin, Mallorca, Alicante, Malaga are all a long way or have water in the way (or both); Paris and Amsterdam would each justify a train a day.
3) in the case of Paris and Amsterdam, the journey time gain doesn’t help much. It would still be quicker to fly than train, especially Amsterdam. Combined with the low frequency, the plane would be most punters choice - the train is on the opposite side of the same equation as Manchester - Heathrow.

 

[Mikey C]

But most importantly, it will be a minimum of an hour quicker by HS2 than by plane, when you take into account check in / security time and minimum connection times at Heathrow / OOC. This is based on a common journey to Manchester Airport / Manchester Airport HS2 station. For many people across the North West it will be even quicker due to being closer to Piccadilly (or another station served by HS2 trains) than the airport. It is also likely to be cheaper for most times of day / week, once built those seats will need filling.

Is that definitely the case? If someone is connecting with British Airways, the flight from Manchester will arrive in T5, so it's an easy connection. You're only checking in once, whether at MAN (flying down) or LHR (taking HS2 down).

And most people using MAN don't live that near Piccadilly or the airport. Taking a taxi or driving to the airport, to me sounds easier than getting to the HS2 station, then changing again at OOC, and checking in at LHR.

 

[quantinghome]

Is that definitely the case? If someone is connecting with British Airways, the flight from Manchester will arrive in T5, so it's an easy connection. You're only checking in once, whether at MAN (flying down) or LHR (taking HS2 down).

And most people using MAN don't live that near Piccadilly or the airport. Taking a taxi or driving to the airport, to me sounds easier than getting to the HS2 station, then changing again at OOC, and checking in at LHR.

It's a minimum 1 hour connection even within T5: https://www.britishairways.com/cms/global/pdfs/UKM5629_T5_Online_Ticket_Wallet.pdf

The flight time is slightly over an hour, so basically the same as the HS2 journey to OOC.

If someone lives close to Manchester airport, and has a connecting flight at T5 which just happens to be scheduled to give an ideal connecting time of just over an hour, then flying would still be a reasonable option in comparison to HS2. But how many people is that? Even at present, with the rather slow and fiddly north-west to Heathrow rail journey, there is only demand for 5 flights a day. What would that come down to post-HS2? Any reduction in flight numbers will reduce the route's utility as there's less chance of a good connection.

Also there's huge demand for Heathrow landing slots. There would be overwhelming pressure to replace the Manchester slots with long haul once HS2 is open.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that definitely the case? If someone is connecting with British Airways, the flight from Manchester will arrive in T5, so it's an easy connection. You're only checking in once, whether at MAN (flying down) or LHR (taking HS2 down).

yes, you are checking in only once, but with an air transfer you have a much longer wait than the train connection.

The flight time MAN-LHR (1h15) is pretty close to the train time MAN HS2 - LHR even allowing for the OOC change (1h30). And when you transfer flights at Heathrow, you will be given at least 1h15 interchange time. Often much more - 3h plus. Hence a minimum 1 hour Betterment, and usually more.

And most people using MAN don't live that near Piccadilly or the airport. Taking a taxi or driving to the airport, to me sounds easier than getting to the HS2 station, then changing again at OOC, and checking in at LHR.

Of course; I used the example of the airport vs HS2 station as there will be negligible difference unless you live in Ringway Road itself. However most people in the North West *do* live nearer an HS2 served station than the airport, and the journey time difference will be greater than 1 hour even in the best case.

I agree that some people will prefer the (slightly) easier way of flying down, but many will prefer to save the hour (at least), and their cash, and get the train. And because many will, the number of flights provided will reduce, which means more will use the train, etc.

15 years ago there were nearly 30 flights a day MAN- London each way. The WCML timetable and pricing has seen most of them off, HS2 will just about finish the job.

 

[quantinghome]

15 years ago there were nearly 30 flights a day MAN- London each way. The WCML timetable and pricing has seen most of them off, HS2 will just about finish the job.

I was wondering what the pre-WCML modernisation flight numbers were. Never thought it would be that many. Astonishing.

Presumably a lot of those flights were for travel to London, whereas now they'd mostly be for connecting at Heathrow?

 

[RSimons]

Isnt there a decent chance of airport traffic the other way? If you can get from London to Birmingham (and maybe Manchester) airports in a decent time there may be a flow of passengers such that airlines fly long haul from those airports with more (and presumably cheaper) slots available??

Whenever I’ve looked at flights to the UK from Canada, the price to Heathrow or Gatwick has been less (by about £30 or more) than those to Manchester, Birmingham or elsewhere in Britain.

 

[Mikey C]

yes, you are checking in only once, but with an air transfer you have a much longer wait than the train connection.

The flight time MAN-LHR (1h15) is pretty close to the train time MAN HS2 - LHR even allowing for the OOC change (1h30). And when you transfer flights at Heathrow, you will be given at least 1h15 interchange time. Often much more - 3h plus. Hence a minimum 1 hour Betterment, and usually more.



Of course; I used the example of the airport vs HS2 station as there will be negligible difference unless you live in Ringway Road itself. However most people in the North West *do* live nearer an HS2 served station than the airport, and the journey time difference will be greater than 1 hour even in the best case.

I agree that some people will prefer the (slightly) easier way of flying down, but many will prefer to save the hour (at least), and their cash, and get the train. And because many will, the number of flights provided will reduce, which means more will use the train, etc.

15 years ago there were nearly 30 flights a day MAN- London each way. The WCML timetable and pricing has seen most of them off, HS2 will just about finish the job.

One advantage of a BA connecting flight from Manchester, is that if the flight is delayed and you miss your BA flight out of Heathrow, BA are responsible and will have to rebook you, whereas if there's trouble on the rail journey down and you miss the flight, you're on your own.

Thus HS2 users will end up leaving earlier just to be safe.