On Mar 24, 8:40*am, wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:57*pm, "tim....." wrote:

"TimB" wrote in message
Aha. So they're saying 'It is much cheaper to safeguard the land at
the start' [for quadrupling] rather than actually planning to build
four tracks from the start. Fair enough. And the plan is to connect
with Heathrow Express at Old Oak rather than running the HSL via
Heathrow - also sensible, I think.

In isolation this seems like a good idea, but when you add in the
possibility of linking Heathrow with HS1 so that trains can replace planes
on the London(Heathrow)-Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam/Cologne/Dusseldorf routes,
it makes no sense at all

I'm assuming that David Rowlands has been misquoted -- the money
saving is in moving the old idea of a 'Heathrow Hub' from Iver to Old
Oak. And it actually makes a good deal of sense when viewed in that
prism, because you don't need the massive investment in distributing
the passengers from Iver to the terminals (HEx/Crossrail will do that
for you). It also allows you to get out of London along the Old Oak -
Greenford - Ruislip line rather than having to carefully thread a
fifth and sixth track along the GW mainline (mostly doable but
expensive in places). Unless HS2 is run by idiots, the trains will
still go on to Euston.

And you can still get to Heathrow: if I were in charge, I'd build
Airtrack and extend HEx to Staines, then take over the platforms at T5
that were due to be Airtrack, make them 'airside' (possibly even
connected to T5's existing airside, although luggage might be an issue
there) and run regular services Heathrow - Old Oak - Stratford (via
Primrose Hill and the direct connection to HS1 at Camden Road) - Paris/
Brussels. Assuming suitable stock, you'd still have 125mph running
from Airport Junction to Old Oak, so it would be 'almost a high-speed
line'.

You are making a LOT of sense. Thanks for posting.

(Just don't expect any of this to actually happen. We are talking
about the UK DfT!)