wrote in message ...
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:26:39 +0100
Recliner wrote:
But the problem with putting an airport a long way off is that it's
also a long way from the customers, who therefore don't want to use
it. BAA invested in a splendid Norman Foster terminal, a railway
station right under the terminal and direct links to the nearby M11,
but that still wasn't enough.

Both Luton and Gatwick are miles out of London with arguably dodgy rail
and
crowded motorway links, yet they're both very popular. There has to be
more
to it than location and the train.

Further back in the thread you said something about Stansted and its fast
rail link to London. Actually that's 4 trains/hour to Liverpool Street
which, to most of London, is somewhere on the eastern border of the City of
London that's not much fun to get to. There is also a connection to the
Victoria Line at Tottenham Hale.

Against that the "arguably dodgy" rail link from Gatwick to London has:

10 trains/hour to Victoria
4 trains/hour to London Bridge
4 trains/hour to Blackfriars/Farringdon/King's X then Bedford

So you're seeking to compare 18 trains/hour to various parts of
central/south London vs 4 trains/hour to Liverpool St (as previously
described).

I can't speak for Luton but it probably has better rail access to London and
the fact that it's not in East Anglia working in its favour.

--
DAS