On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:43:10 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

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

No, it's because it's a very poor airport by most criteria I can think
of. (I live in the south, so I don't quite see why I would denigrate
it on that basis).


It's easy to criticise Heathrow. The central area is cramped and
dirty and the siting of Terminals 4 and 5 could not be much further
apart. The terminals are of inconsistent design and none could be
described as world class, not even the newest of them (T5). Transport
links are very poor, with chronic congestion on the M25, M4, A4 and
A30. Public transport links are particularly weak, with all the signs
of a lack of any strategic approach over the years as to how Heathrow
should be served.

I think most would agree that, taken as a whole, Heathrow sucks.

But there is one thing about Heathrow that means it cannot be
dismissed, brushed aside or ignored. That is the fact that it is used
by *66 million* passengers a year (2009 figures).

Heathrow is the fifth busiest airport in the world. It handles more
international passengers than any other airport in the world. It is
the busiest airport in Europe - Paris CDG serves 57 million, Frankfurt
51 million, Madrid 48 million and Schiphol 44 million.

66 million passengers a year averages out at nearly 1.3 million per
week or just under 200,000 people per day. Many of those are transit
passengers, but the remainder create a huge demand for domestic travel
to and from the airport. That's why there is such potential for a
station on High Speed 2.

Not only would such a station serve people who currently travel
to/from the airport by road, it would also serve many who take onward
internal flights to destinations elsewhere in Britain.

So there's the potential. No matter how much we as individuals may
dislike Heathrow (and I hate the place almost as much as Neil does) we
cannot deny that a huge untapped market exists for rail. That market
would not be well served by the HS2 station at Old Oak Common -
something much better needs to be provided.

The question is what. But you don't get the right answer to that
question by asking a has-been former Secretary of State for Transport
who was there for less than a year and wasn't any good at the job in
the first place to review a half-baked and thoroughly incompetent
proposal for a high speed line to Birmingham to see if it is worth
serving Heathrow (that should be taken as read, because of the 66
million).

You stand a far better chance by commissioning strategic studies then
appointing a prominent, able person to decide on the way forward and
champion the project. We need someone who has real vision and the
determination to push the project onward to completion despite all the
siren voices who say we should have done something else, or nothing at
all. Instead, we have the usual British muddle, management by
committee and the sheer amateurism that afflicts so many major
projects. Consult by all means, but for heaven's sake *decide* what
to do rather than fudge it.

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. ;-)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:32:43 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

"I don't believe it!"

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



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

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

On 21 July, 19:43, "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)"

I recall very similar comments being made when HS1 was at a similar
stage of planning, suggesting that the the line should terminate at
Stratford, and passengers connecting from there to central London. If
HS2 follows a similar trajectory, perhaps we'll end up with an
expensive station built at Old Oak Common, with HS2 trains from Euston
to Birmingham whizzing through without stopping there.

Robin

On Jul 22, 1:37*am, bob wrote:
On 21 July, 19:43, "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)"

I recall very similar comments being made when HS1 was at a similar
stage of planning, suggesting that the the line should terminate at
Stratford, and passengers connecting from there to central London. *If
HS2 follows a similar trajectory, perhaps we'll end up with an
expensive station built at Old Oak Common, with HS2 trains from Euston
to Birmingham whizzing through without stopping there.

Let us hope, that if HS2 is ever constrcted, there will a link north
of Euston and Saint Pancras allowing thru trains to HS1. Logically
these could call at Old Oak Common and/or Stratford for "London".