In message , at 18:12:21 on Sat, 21
Jan 2017, Neil Williams remarked:

If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.

It's much more than 2 minutes.
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-01-21 18:18:33 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 18:12:21 on Sat, 21
Jan 2017, Neil Williams remarked:

If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.

It's much more than 2 minutes.

That's irrelevant to my point. My point was that however long it
takes, it is a predictable amount of time that will always be the same,
unlike a transit train.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2017-01-21 18:17:32 +0000, Roland Perry said:

If you've just missed a train, and only one is running, it's quite a long time.

Indeed. I have a great dislike of these transit shuttle things. I
vastly prefer a tunnel with travelators *even if it takes longer*, as
you are not at the mercy of something else.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:12:21 on Sat, 21
Jan 2017, Neil Williams remarked:

If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.

It's much more than 2 minutes.

It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:14:06 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 16:25:49 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:


Anyone who travels through Gatwick has probably seen the overbridge
that connects the North Terminal to its pier 6. This is the world's
highest and longest passenger bridge over an active taxiway, and I
think it's rather elegant.

It's also a complete pain in the arse. Why didn't they connect to the
South Terminal instead?

It's nowhere near the South terminal, so your question makes no sense.

It's 200m from the nearest bit of the south terminal.

That's the end of the long pier (it's a long hike from there to the
terminal). It's nowhere near the South terminal main building.

I expect they have traveltors.

Yes, and it's still a long hike, unless you just stand still on them.
You've obviously never used the gates at the far end of that long, long
pier. I have, and too often.

Actually, I have.

Why don't you like it? It's more convenient than getting to the T2
satellite at Heathrow, and much more scenic.

It makes the route-march to immigration even longer.

No, it's less walking than most Gatwick North gates,

Nonsense! You walk straight pasta number of gates on the north side of
the bridge.

Far fewer than from most of the North Terminal gates. I get the impression
you've hardly ever used Gatwick?

Dozens of times. Including quite a bit of Easyjet from that new(ish)
pier.

and much shorter than
the end of the long Gatwick South pier that you wanted to connect to. Your
idea would make it an incredibly long hike to Immigration.

And then you have to take the shuttle all the way back to the South
terminal to catch a train.

Which is completely painless,

It's time-consuming.

Indeed, all of two minutes.

If you've just missed a train, and only one is running, it's quite a
long time.

About five minutes wait.

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-01-21 14:41:32 +0000, Recliner said:

It opened in 2005, and was designed to be high enough for the
then-largest aircraft using Gatwick, the 747-400, to pass underneath.
The only other such airbridge over a taxiway (in Denver) is much
smaller, only being high enough for 737s to pass underneath. Of
course, Gatwick North Terminal now sees regular A380s, which are
slightly too high to pass under the bridge, while no 747s currently
serve the North Terminal (which will soon change, as Virgin is moving
to it).

It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.

The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times, as there
aren't nearly enough ePassport readers. You can easily queue for 20
minutes, by which time your bags will have arrived on the belt.

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 20:49:18 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

If you've just missed a train, and only one is running, it's quite a
long time.

About five minutes wait.

That's long enough to miss a train at the railway station, and if the
next one is 15 minutes later, you might then miss your connection to a
1tph train out of London.
--
Roland Perry

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 20:49:18 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

If it takes me 2 minutes to walk over that bridge (say), unless I'm
injured I know it will always take that.

It's much more than 2 minutes.

It's about 200m long, and has travelators, so two minutes is about right.

What about the escalators up and down?
--
Roland Perry

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 20:49:19 on Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:

It is certainly an impressive piece of engineering - and because
Gatwick haven't got anywhere with the practicalities of you getting
your luggage within a reasonable time of landing, you usually have
plenty of time to stroll over it slowly and admire it, too.

The longer delay in Gatwick North is at Immigration at busy times

I was enroled in the Iris scheme, so no delays (apart from having to
fail to get the Iris machine to recognise me, which then put you at the
head of the manual queue).
--
Roland Perry

Thanks for the photos, they are very good. They made me think of that episode of Thunderbirds that involves landing a Concorde-like plane.