On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:38:18 +0100, "
wrote:

Too bad. It'd be nice to see Heathrow get a Schipol-style set up.

The only way Heathrow would ever come even close to Schiphol is to
flatten it and start again. I fail to understand the obsession with
the UK's nastiest airport. It doesn't need better transport links, it
needs a heavy reduction in flights in favour of other airports that
actually have the capacity or the space to expand in a proper,
passenger-friendly manner, or even a brand new one.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On 21/07/2010 23:06, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, wrote:

Too bad. It'd be nice to see Heathrow get a Schipol-style set up.

Or even a Gatwick-style set up.

tom

Indeed.

On Jul 21, 3:17*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:12:22 +0100, "tim...."

wrote:
It's this "we have to have the complete solution at day one or we don't
start" attitude that causes everything to be cancelled in this country.

No. *We have to have a useful solution from Day 1. *A line that stops
somewhere in the suburbs of West London is not a useful solution when
a lot of passengers won't want to use Crossrail (which as a result
will probably end up overcrowded) but will prefer to take a taxi from
a central London station.

But I admit my preference is that it should not go ahead. *Capacity on
existing lines is far more important than trying to corner a
relatively small domestic air travel market.

The idea of building HS2 on a piecemeal basis sounds attractive. But,
one suspects that construction of the Old Oak Common to Euston section
would be continually delayed. There would always be projects more
urgently needing funding.

Despite the potential for connections, Old Oak would always be a
second rate terminus. Moreover, Crossrail trains would likely be full
before reaching Paddington and the tunnel section.

In message eNJ1o.455628$_m6.226552@hurricane, at 22:38:18 on Wed, 21
Jul 2010, " remarked:

It'd be nice to see Heathrow get a Schipol-style set up.

First you would need to rebuild the terminals so there was just one of
them, not three (and that's giving T1 and T3 the benefit of the doubt of
being "one terminal" - a bit like Schiphol's two halves but further
apart).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
23:06:26 on Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Or even a Gatwick-style set up.

That's more of a possibility: a station vaguely serving one terminal,
plus a "transit" to the other(s). In effect the Old-Oak-Common plan is
exactly that, except it's a transit to every terminal.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:48:50 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

That's more of a possibility: a station vaguely serving one terminal,
plus a "transit" to the other(s). In effect the Old-Oak-Common plan is
exactly that, except it's a transit to every terminal.

With a rather longer journey time than your typical airport transit.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

In message
Neil Williams wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:38:18 +0100, "
wrote:

Too bad. It'd be nice to see Heathrow get a Schipol-style set up.

The only way Heathrow would ever come even close to Schiphol is to
flatten it and start again.

Which, within the parameters of still operating the airport, is what they are
doing.

I fail to understand the obsession with the UK's nastiest airport.

I fail to understand the obsession with denigrating Heathrow on this group, I
assume it is because it is in the south.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
Neil Williams wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:12:22 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:

It's this "we have to have the complete solution at day one or we don't
start" attitude that causes everything to be cancelled in this country.

No. We have to have a useful solution from Day 1. A line that stops
somewhere in the suburbs of West London is not a useful solution when
a lot of passengers won't want to use Crossrail (which as a result
will probably end up overcrowded) but will prefer to take a taxi from
a central London station.

But I admit my preference is that it should not go ahead. Capacity on
existing lines is far more important than trying to corner a
relatively small domestic air travel market.


Which goes to show that you don't understand the project at all.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:19:36 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:38:18 +0100, "
wrote:

Too bad. It'd be nice to see Heathrow get a Schipol-style set up.

The only way Heathrow would ever come even close to Schiphol is to
flatten it and start again. I fail to understand the obsession with
the UK's nastiest airport. It doesn't need better transport links, it
needs a heavy reduction in flights in favour of other airports that
actually have the capacity or the space to expand in a proper,
passenger-friendly manner, or even a brand new one.


"I don't believe it!"

Careful, Neil, you are beginning to sound like Victor Meldrew. ;-)

In message , at 08:18:12 on
Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Neil Williams
remarked:
That's more of a possibility: a station vaguely serving one terminal,
plus a "transit" to the other(s). In effect the Old-Oak-Common plan is
exactly that, except it's a transit to every terminal.

With a rather longer journey time than your typical airport transit.

Probably quicker than the walk from the Madrid airport metro station to
the low-cost check-in desks. And it took me half an hour to get from one
end of Frankfurt airport to the other, a couple of months ago.
--
Roland Perry