.... from Mahwinney report. Available on DfT website.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...whinneyreport/

"I recommend that serious consideration be given to making Old Oak Common
the initial London terminal for the high speed line - and that in the early
stages it be designated London-Old Oak Common (just as Euston would have
been designated London-Euston) - and that effective use be made of the £16
billion Crossrail project and other rail and tube connections to provide
access to passengers` final destinations including Heathrow. "

"I have concluded and recommend that, in the early stages of a high speed
rail network, there is no compelling case for a direct high speed rail link
to Heathrow, and that a London-Old Oak Common interchange could provide an
appropriate, good quality terminus and connection point to the airport.
(paragraph 46)"

etc etc.

Now this study was kicked off by Adonis, although the poisoned chalice was
handed to a Conservative. So will it be agreed by Hammond and his team?

Paul S

On Jul 21, 10:43*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
... from Mahwinney report. *Available on DfT website.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...whinneyreport/

"I recommend that serious consideration be given to making Old Oak Common
the initial London terminal for the high speed line - and that in the early
stages it be designated London-Old Oak Common (just as Euston would have
been designated London-Euston) - and that effective use be made of the £16
billion Crossrail project and other rail and tube connections to provide
access to passengers` final destinations including Heathrow. "

"I have concluded and recommend that, in the early stages of a high speed
rail network, there is no compelling case for a direct high speed rail link
to Heathrow, and that a London-Old Oak Common interchange could provide an
appropriate, good quality terminus and connection point to the airport.
(paragraph 46)"

etc etc.

Now this study was kicked off by Adonis, although the poisoned chalice was
handed to a Conservative. So will it be agreed by Hammond and his team?

Thus far, I have not read the report. My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. OTOH, IMHO, HS2 should proceed
to Euston. A link to HS1 (Services calling at Stratford as their
London Station) would also be worthwhile.

One would not expect to see this in one’s lifetime, :-)

On 21 July, 18:53, 1506 wrote:

Thus far, I have not read the report. *My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. *

Why is not going to Heathrow good?

In message
, at
03:43:49 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Stephen Furley
remarked:
Thus far, I have not read the report. *My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. *

Why is not going to Heathrow good?

In the same way that not sticking your head down a toilet is good.
--
Roland Perry

On 22 July, 12:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:43:49 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Stephen Furley
remarked:

Thus far, I have not read the report. *My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. *

Why is not going to Heathrow good?

In the same way that not sticking your head down a toilet is good.

Ok, why is going to Heathrow bad? Wouldn't it enable international
arriving passengers with short-haul connections, e.g. to make these by
rail, rather than by air? Heathrow is terrible for land transport,
buses which take ages, Underground which takes ages and has little
space for luggage, or rail which only gets you to Paddington.

In message
, at
04:50:51 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Stephen Furley
remarked:

Ok, why is going to Heathrow bad?

Because it's an overcrowded, dirty, hostile place.
--
Roland Perry

Ok, why is going to Heathrow bad? *Wouldn't it enable international
arriving passengers with short-haul connections, e.g. to make these by
rail, rather than by air? *


Name one.

Those international passengers currently using internal air
connections that could make use of HS2 as an alternative are very
small in number, just Manchester really.

Heathrow is terrible for land transport,
buses which take ages, Underground which takes ages and has little
space for luggage, or rail which only gets you to Paddington.

Yes, which is why local rail connections at Heathrow need to be
improved far more urgently than providing HS2.

It would be rather missing the point to give Heathrow a station on HS2
whilst you still can’t get to such places as Reading, Guildford,
Croydon, Windsor or Wimbledon by rail.

On Jul 22, 3:43*am, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 21 July, 18:53, 1506 wrote:

Thus far, I have not read the report. *My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. *

Why is not going to Heathrow good?

1. It lengthens the journey to Birmingham.
2. It will be difficult to construct. There will be land-take and
destruction of property.
3. It will distort the carrying capacity. Folks making short Euston
to Airport journeys will take seats that could be used for London
Birmingham passengers.

In message
, at
08:26:47 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, 1506 remarked:

Folks making short Euston to Airport journeys will take seats that
could be used for London Birmingham passengers.

Not if you don't sell tickets (aka make Heathrow "pick up only"
northbound)
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:43:39 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
... from Mahwinney report. Available on DfT website.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...whinneyreport/

"I recommend that serious consideration be given to making Old Oak Common
the initial London terminal for the high speed line - and that in the early
stages it be designated London-Old Oak Common (just as Euston would have
been designated London-Euston) - and that effective use be made of the £16
billion Crossrail project and other rail and tube connections to provide
access to passengers` final destinations including Heathrow. "

"I have concluded and recommend that, in the early stages of a high speed
rail network, there is no compelling case for a direct high speed rail link
to Heathrow, and that a London-Old Oak Common interchange could provide an
appropriate, good quality terminus and connection point to the airport.
(paragraph 46)"

etc etc.

Now this study was kicked off by Adonis, although the poisoned chalice was
handed to a Conservative. So will it be agreed by Hammond and his team?


Mawhinney's conclusions are based on what? This is just another
rushed report that takes a superficial look at a problem and draws
simplistic conclusions based on scant data.

What is desperately needed with HS2 is for it to be policy-driven.
Government first has to decide what its policy should be. Then, and
only then, government should invite consultants to design a route that
fulfils the policy objectives that have been set out.

Instead, the HS2 team has been given a dangerous combination of
(1) no strategic direction apart from "London-Birmingham" and
(2) apparently unlimited freedom to suggest whatever the team thinks
is appropriate. The result is that some idiot drew a straight line on
the map and, er, that's just about it.

Strategic decisions needed to be made *by government* on whether
Heathrow and/or other intermediate destinations should be served. This
should **never** have been left to HS2 to decide. And, having made
that glaring mistake, the worst possible course of action was to ask
Mawhinney to throw in his two penn'orth.

Government's duty is to govern and make strategic decisions. Whether
or not Heathrow should be served is a strategic decision. It should
have been decided on *before* HS2 were let loose, not after.

There is now a considerable danger that, in its rush to get any sort
of high speed rail project under way, Lord Adonis' series of serious
errors of judgment will be compounded by bringing in Mawhinney, Uncle
Tom Cobbleigh and all to fudge strategic decisions that should already
have been set in stone before HS2 was set up.

And who in the name of God chose Mawhinney for this review? A
thoroughly nasty man, he was a spectacularly bad Secretary of State
(for less than a year) who was definitely not missed. His tenure as
Chairman of the Football League has hardly been covered in glory.

First we had Foster (on the IEP) and now Mawhinney (on HS2). Lord
alone knows how these people were chosen for these tasks.