"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote

They seem to be talking about a new line from Heathrow to St Pancras.

The original HEx plans had a second terminus at St Pancras, via a route
through north London - this new one might be a tunnel. Is it too late to
divert Crossrail slightly, and have one of its stations at St Pancras?
Or
maybe a very long travelator from Farringdon

Crossrail is not an 'express' service. Its services are all stations
stoppers
from the airport, which is why it takes over Connect, not HEx. Unless it
is
to have overtaking loops of course...

I'll wait to see the actual proposals before I comment on them. However, a
previous thread suggested that HEx would be likely to lose to Crossrail
passengers who now transfer from HEx to LUL at Paddington, plus others who
transfer to taxis, but will now do so at another Crossrail station. So there
might be a case for diverting HEx (in tunnel, not wandering all round
Cricklewood) to St Pancras. Passengers who needd to travel between heathrow
and Paddington will still be able to use Crossrail.

Peter

In message , at 10:48:31 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Peter Masson remarked:
So there might be a case for diverting HEx (in tunnel, not wandering
all round Cricklewood) to St Pancras.

Would this be a new station at St Pancras, or maybe sharing the Kent
domestic platforms, which might be over-specified. On the other hand, if
Thameslink2012 does in fact include through-running from the GN services
on the ECML, there will greater spare capacity at KX.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:48:31 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Peter Masson remarked:
So there might be a case for diverting HEx (in tunnel, not wandering
all round Cricklewood) to St Pancras.

Would this be a new station at St Pancras, or maybe sharing the Kent
domestic platforms, which might be over-specified. On the other hand, if
Thameslink2012 does in fact include through-running from the GN services
on the ECML, there will greater spare capacity at KX.

I envisage an underground terminus, possibly double ended, with one entrance
from the concourse at St Pancras (near the access to the Thameslink
platforms, and another with an entrance from Euston (may need a travelator).

Peter

In message , at 11:00:51 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Peter Masson remarked:
So there might be a case for diverting HEx (in tunnel, not wandering
all round Cricklewood) to St Pancras.

Would this be a new station at St Pancras, or maybe sharing the Kent
domestic platforms, which might be over-specified. On the other hand, if
Thameslink2012 does in fact include through-running from the GN services
on the ECML, there will greater spare capacity at KX.

I envisage an underground terminus, possibly double ended, with one entrance
from the concourse at St Pancras (near the access to the Thameslink
platforms, and another with an entrance from Euston (may need a travelator).

What would it be "underneath", there's a lot of existing stuff under StP
and KX, and I'm not sure you'd be able to locate anything under the
British Library.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
01:35:13 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, remarked:
Especially given that passenger numbers at heathrow are dropping
according to this report. The whole thing stinks.

We are in a "bust", so of course short-term passenger numbers are likely
to fall. The new runway is (one possible) solution for the capacity
required in the next "boom". If there's not going to be another "boom", we
don't need a lot of things, including Crossrail.

But it is quite possible that by the time the next boom comes along, the
attitude to companies for international travel has changed.

It is business travellers that "demand" the benefits of a Heathrow hub. I
would suggest that tourist travellers would much prefer point to point from
their local airport, even if the cost of that is "one flight per week".

tim

On Jan 15, 10:40*am, Roland Perry wrote:
When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity
projects.

So you'd recommend suspending Crossrail until we are well into the next
boom (and suffering from the fact it doesn't exist yet)?

Crossrail is required because even now the tube is an essential
service (the majority of its passengers are not off on holiday) that
is hopelessly overloaded. Heathrow is far from being essential and
isn't overloaded anyway. As you say , its merely "predicted" to be so
based on some finger in the air guesitmates which are now all null and
void anyway.

so why build a new runway now when they're dropping??

because it's predicted to rise, later.

And we all now how accurate predictions are. Anyone who can predict
what will happen to the world economy in the next decade is either
deluded or a liar.

Of course, there might be other solutions, such as closing Heathrow and
running 4tph Eurostar to CDG - but have you modelled the consequences
for the UK economy?

Wtf are you talking about? The amount of economic activiy provided to
the economy by air travel is minimal. Most goods come and go by ship
and most trading is done electronically. Even most business can be
done using phone or email.

Also economic growth (when it returns) is unsustainable anyway. At
some point it has to stop and building more and more runways isn't the
answer - what happens in 20 years if the new one is overloaded? Build
another on top of hounslow? And another on top of staines when thats
saturated too?

Its like saying "oh , theres less traffic on the roads -
lets build some bypasses!"

The road building programme (such as it is) hasn't been suspended
because of the bust.

You're not good with analogies are you.

B2003

wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 10:08 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
01:35:13 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, remarked:

Especially given that passenger numbers at heathrow are dropping
according to this report. The whole thing stinks.

We are in a "bust", so of course short-term passenger numbers are likely
to fall. The new runway is (one possible) solution for the capacity
required in the next "boom". If there's not going to be another "boom",
we don't need a lot of things, including Crossrail.

When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity
projects.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one (and only) good thing about this decision, is that it isn't a
decision to spend their (aka our) money, but to allow a PLC to spend its
money.

If there is no business case for the plan, the banks wont lend BAA the
funds.

tim

On Jan 15, 11:46*am, "tim....." wrote:
If there is no business case for the plan, the banks wont lend BAA the
funds.

Given who caused the current crisis I think its fair to say that banks
are the last places you'd go to get an accurate prediction of the
future! )

B2003

In message
wrote:

On Jan 15, 10:08*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
01:35:13 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, remarked:

Especially given that passenger numbers at heathrow are dropping
according to this report. The whole thing stinks.

We are in a "bust", so of course short-term passenger numbers are likely
to fall. The new runway is (one possible) solution for the capacity
required in the next "boom". If there's not going to be another "boom",
we don't need a lot of things, including Crossrail.

When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity
projects. Even in the boom years heathrow could cope with the
passenger numbers

The problem is Heathrow couldn't cope with the passenger numbers. Ignoring
the environmental and social problens, now is a good time to invest in major
infrastructure works. Same arguement applies to eg electrification of the
GWML.

Which is not to say I'm in favour of the third runway, I'm not. But I can
see the economic arguements.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

EE507 wrote:

The Tories can't decide whether they object to an expansion of airport
capacity on principle, or whether, as Boris says, it's just Heathrow
that is unsuitable. Rather like Labour didn't reverse rail
privatisation when they came to power, I suspect the Tories wouldn't
reverse any decision on Heathrow. Anyway, let's wait for the official
announcement.


The Tories have already stated, unequivocally, that they will cancel any
planned third runway at Heathrow when (if) they get into power.

Boris Toffson's Thames Estuary Airport plan is something of an
embarrassment for the Tory party. He is shaping up to be as much of a
thorn in the Tories' side as Ken Livingstone was in his party's.