On Apr 12, 12:53*am, Bruce wrote:
" wrote:
....
Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get
planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. *
....
Terminal 5's Business Car Park users
....
Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission
for the third runway and associated works. *Now the coalition
government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is
dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack.

Correct.

'Airtrack' - well the concept of it - has been in the planning since
the early 1980s - I used to work for BA Airport Policy Planning. In
1983/4 I was fixing a computer in the APP manager Paul Ellis' office
in Comet House, and I noticed that on the back of his office door was
a map of 'Airtrack' - although it wasn't called that at the time. I
asked why didn't they rebuild the line into Heathrow (as part of the
GWR branch from West Drayton to Staines). Paul answered that they (BA
and BAA prior to Ferovial's takeover) wouldn't get everything approved
if they asked for T4, then the widening of the M25, then T5, then
'Airtrack,' and then a Third Runway - all at once. He then stated that
BA's and BAA's policy was piecemeal encroachment of the Green Belt. So
that's what they did - T4 came first. then the M25 widening, then T5.
But the public enquiry for latter was so drawn out, BAA (and BA) were
caught lying about future expansion, and the locals were starting to
wise up and get organised to protest, that the momentum started to
wane.

And with the Climate Camp, increasing awareness of the damage that
aircraft do to the environment, the general world recession, the
cessation of expansion at Heathrow by the Coalition Govt., and
Ferovial's own financial woes, all now means that Airtrack is not
viable. The opposition of the local councils has also added pressure
to drop the project with regards to traffic congestion at innumerable
level crossings.

CJB.

P.S. It is sad that Paul Ellis and his team at BA have wasted their
entire working lives and careers trying to get the Third Runway and
Airtrack off the ground (so to speak) only to have both project
cancelled. What a total waste of time and human talent.

On 2011\04\12 08:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
23:16:06 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, ianh
remarked:
I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move
(empty)

Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was
quiet time of day?

If it was open and quiet, there would be no cars on the move.

"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message
, at
23:16:06 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, ianh
remarked:
I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move
(empty)

Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was
quiet time of day?


Still testing, testing, 1-2-3.

In message , at 13:43:50 on
Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Basil Jet remarked:

I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move
(empty)

Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was
quiet time of day?

If it was open and quiet, there would be no cars on the move.

I assumed there wasn't room for all the cars to be queued up at one or
other terminal, and they'd be circulating around as a substitute for
somewhere to 'park' them.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message , at 13:43:50 on Tue,
12 Apr 2011, Basil Jet remarked:

I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move
(empty)

Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was
quiet time of day?

If it was open and quiet, there would be no cars on the move.

I assumed there wasn't room for all the cars to be queued up at one or
other terminal, and they'd be circulating around as a substitute for
somewhere to 'park' them.


I think that'd be an erroneous assumption - not least because the battery
capacity isn't unlimited.

In message , at 14:34:44 on Tue, 12 Apr
2011, Mizter T remarked:
I assumed there wasn't room for all the cars to be queued up at one
or other terminal, and they'd be circulating around as a substitute
for somewhere to 'park' them.

I think that'd be an erroneous assumption - not least because the
battery capacity isn't unlimited.

If the cars don't have enough battery power to keep going all day, what
happens when they get busy?
--
Roland Perry

On 2011\04\12 14:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:34:44 on Tue, 12 Apr
2011, Mizter T remarked:
I assumed there wasn't room for all the cars to be queued up at one
or other terminal, and they'd be circulating around as a substitute
for somewhere to 'park' them.

I think that'd be an erroneous assumption - not least because the
battery capacity isn't unlimited.

If the cars don't have enough battery power to keep going all day, what
happens when they get busy?

New ones will be magicked out of thin air. The same as what happens when
a bus pulls up at a stop with 100 people waiting to board, or when the
engines start falling off 92 stock.

ianh wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:53*am, Bruce wrote:
" wrote:

How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder,
considering that it is almost two years delayed.

Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get
planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. *

The PRT was going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central
Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. *But BAA got planning
permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so the PRT trial
seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of
Terminal 5's Business Car Park users.

Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission
for the third runway and associated works. *Now the coalition
government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is
dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack.

Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go
ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the
third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. *The recent
confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another
possible factor in the decision to curtail investment.

I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move
(empty)


It was supposed to be opened to the public in autumn 2009. Or at
least opened to those of the public who use the T5 Business car park:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5s5f87e

"Mizter T" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote:
In message
, at
23:16:06 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, ianh
remarked:
I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move
(empty)

Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was
quiet time of day?


Still testing, testing, 1-2-3.



The Heathrow PRT must have had the longest period of "operational
testing" since the Advanced Passenger Train. The "operational
testing" phase started on 7 July 2009.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6an8a4l

I have a feeling that the Heathrow PRT will be bidding for a place on
a long list of abandoned British public transport projects ...

On 12/04/2011 07:16, ianh wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:53 am, wrote:
wrote:

How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder,
considering that it is almost two years delayed.

Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get
planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow.

The PRT was going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central
Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. But BAA got planning
permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so the PRT trial
seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of
Terminal 5's Business Car Park users.

Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission
for the third runway and associated works. Now the coalition
government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is
dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack.

Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go
ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the
third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. The recent
confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another
possible factor in the decision to curtail investment.

I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move
(empty)

I've seen them running as well, also sans passengers. I saw one even in
an RBS wrap.