On Mar 24, 2:50*pm, Clark F Morris wrote:
As a traveler who has handled various transfers, I find that a station
in the airport is far more convenient and reduces the number of
connections needed by one. *The second best would be to have the rail
station connected to the internal circulation system. *If it makes
sense to have the TGV serve Charles de Gaulle and have an airport
station at Schipol (also Frankfurt), then having the high speed line
access Heathrow is worthy of very serious consideration.

I agree with you. But there are a few points to make.

(1) The previous proposal incorporated a 'Heathrow Hub' station at
Iver, several miles from the airport itself. Connecting that to the
airport would have required a complex inter-terminal shuttle system
that currently does not exist.

(2) Heathrow as such is not one place -- it is currently three places
(T123, T4, T5) and may by 2020 be four (T6, adjacent to the third
runway, would be the other one). The 'internal circulation system' is
Heathrow Express and/or Heathrow Connect (which will be replaced by
Crossrail before 2020).

(3) Once you're on the internal circulation system in order to reach
'Heathrow station', then it's reasonable to ask how close 'Heathrow
station' has to be to the terminals. I'd always assumed that it would
be close by, but given that it will only take about ten minutes to get
from T123 to Old Oak, and that siting 'Heathrow station' at Old Oak
allows HS2 to be shorter, cheaper and (most importantly) faster, I
actually think it's an inspired choice. And it's not like London's the
first city to do this: west of the Pond, both JFK and Newark do the
same thing. (Newark has a dedicated 'airport station' at the end of
the inter-terminal tramway; JFK connects its to a rail interchange hub
a few miles away. And both charge premium fares for riding the
internal circulation system to the railhead.)

(4) Even with all the above, I'd hope there would be a reasonably
regular international high-speed service from Heathrow -- but you'd
need to pick one place for it to run from. T5 has a pair of spare
platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so
that's the obvious place to use.

writes:
And it's not like London's the first city to do this: west of the
Pond, both JFK and Newark do the same thing.

Note that in both of those cases, it's generally regarded as something
annoying and dysfunctional. If the airport system were fast and
convenient, no reason it couldn't work, but they inevitably seem to be
designed by idiots getting kickbacks from the taxi industry and airport
parking lobby (at least in the U.S.)...

-Miles

--
Twice, adv. Once too often.

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:08:44 UTC, schrieb auf
uk.railway :

(4) Even with all the above, I'd hope there would be a reasonably
regular international high-speed service from Heathrow -- but you'd
need to pick one place for it to run from. T5 has a pair of spare
platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so
that's the obvious place to use.

BA owns 10% not of Eurostar, but of ICRR (Intercapital and Regional
Railways), which manages the British Eurostar operations based on a
1998 contract with Eurostar (UK) Ltd, a contract with expires in 2010,
i.e. next year. And BA is a "silent" partner, i.e. does not take part
in the day to day steering of ICRR's activities. ICRR in turn is, if I
am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which
is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an
international operation.


Cheers,
L.W.

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

On 25 Mar, 09:15, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:08:44 UTC, *schrieb *auf
uk.railway :

(4) Even with all the above, I'd hope there would be a reasonably
regular international high-speed service from Heathrow -- but you'd
need to pick one place for it to run from. T5 has a pair of spare
platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so
that's the obvious place to use.

* BA owns 10% not of Eurostar, but of ICRR (Intercapital and Regional
Railways), which manages the British Eurostar operations based on a
1998 contract with Eurostar (UK) Ltd, a contract with expires in 2010,
i.e. next year. And BA is a "silent" partner, i.e. does not take part
in the day to day steering of ICRR's activities. ICRR in turn is, if I
am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which
is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an
international operation.


You are mistaken - Eurostar Group is the "unified management
structure" that was created in 1999 by the three Eurostar partners -
SNCF, LCR, and SNCB/NMBS. Eurostar Group Ltd is merely the legal
identity of this structure.

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:50:23 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
auf uk.railway :

RR in turn is, if I
am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which
is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an
international operation.

You are mistaken - Eurostar Group is the "unified management
structure" that was created in 1999 by the three Eurostar partners -
SNCF, LCR, and SNCB/NMBS. Eurostar Group Ltd is merely the legal
identity of this structure.

Are you sure, that neither EUKL nor ICRR are partner of Eurostar
Group Ltd? Do you have sources for this?

And if, if neither the owner of the British Eurostar trainsets
(EUKL) nor the company which is the railway undertaking running those
trains on British soil (ICRR) are partners in Eurostar Group Ltd, on
what contractual basis can Eurostar Group Ltd interfere in the
business of EUKL and ICRR?


Cheers,
L.W.

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

On 25 Mar, 20:21, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:50:23 UTC, *schrieb Mizter T
*auf uk.railway :

ICRR in turn is, if I
am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which
is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an
international operation.

You are mistaken - Eurostar Group is the "unified management
structure" that was created in 1999 by the three Eurostar partners -
SNCF, LCR, and SNCB/NMBS. Eurostar Group Ltd is merely the legal
identity of this structure.

* Are you sure, that neither EUKL nor ICRR are partner of Eurostar
Group Ltd? Do you have sources for this?

LCR *wholly owns* EUKL, and I said that LCR was one of the three
partners that make up Eurostar Group Ltd.

This railfaneurope.net page suggests that the split in ownership of
Eurostar Group Ltd is EUKL 33%, SNCF 62%, SNCB/NMBS 5% - ok, so LCR is
a partner through it's wholly owned subsidiary EUKL rather than a
direct partner in Eurostar Group Ltd, but that's just a technicality.


* And if, if neither the owner of the British Eurostar trainsets
(EUKL) nor the company which is the railway undertaking running those
trains on British soil (ICRR) are partners in Eurostar Group Ltd, on
what contractual basis can Eurostar Group Ltd interfere in the
business of EUKL and ICRR?

Read what I said! I did mention LCR.

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:40:54 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
auf uk.railway :

This railfaneurope.net page suggests that the split in ownership of
Eurostar Group Ltd is EUKL 33%, SNCF 62%, SNCB/NMBS 5% - ok, so LCR is
a partner through it's wholly owned subsidiary EUKL rather than a
direct partner in Eurostar Group Ltd, but that's just a technicality.

No, it isnt. Since if the British share in Eurostar Group Ltd were
held by L&CR, a sale of EUKL would not pass this ownership to the
buyer of EUKL, but stay with L&CR, among whose owners one finds
SNCF...

Railfaneurope... I wait for a reply from SNCF Participations to my
query...

* And if, if neither the owner of the British Eurostar trainsets
(EUKL) nor the company which is the railway undertaking running those
trains on British soil (ICRR) are partners in Eurostar Group Ltd, on
what contractual basis can Eurostar Group Ltd interfere in the
business of EUKL and ICRR?

Read what I said! I did mention LCR.

Sure, but EUKL handed management of Eurostar on Great Britain over
to ICRR. What is then left to EUKL to do? I would think that not EUKL,
but ICRR is the partner in Eurostar Group Ltd, and that the 62% which
SNCF gives on their SNCF-Participations website is the addition of a
direct share and the indirect via ICRR.


Cheers,
L.W.

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

On Mar 25, 1:08*am, wrote:
actually think it's an inspired choice. And it's not like London's the
first city to do this: west of the Pond, both JFK and Newark do the
same thing. (Newark has a dedicated 'airport station' at the end of
the inter-terminal tramway; JFK connects its to a rail interchange hub
a few miles away. And both charge premium fares for riding the
internal circulation system to the railhead.)

Is that charging structure new, at Newark?

I haven't been there for a few years, but I'm 90% sure that last time
I was there I caught the standard inter-terminal monorail-type-thing,
for free, to the Amtrak/NJ Transit station.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Mar 25, 9:16*am, wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:08*am, wrote:

Is that charging structure new, at Newark?

I haven't been there for a few years, but I'm 90% sure that last time
I was there I caught the standard inter-terminal monorail-type-thing,
for free, to the Amtrak/NJ Transit station.

No, it isn't new. It's just that it was built into the price of your
rail ticket. If you'd bought a ticket to the next station on
(Elizabeth), it would have been nearly $10 less (it's $15 from Penn to
the airport, $5.50 from Penn to Elizabeth). The last time I caught
this train (as it happens, I _was_ going to Elizabeth), tickets were
collected from most passengers by the conductor, but airport
passengers had to retain their ticket to prove at the airport station
that they'd actually paid the $10 supplement.

In message
, at
18:08:44 on Tue, 24 Mar 2009, remarked:
T5 has a pair of spare platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own
about 10% of Eurostar, so that's the obvious place to use.

BA own 10% of Eurostar UK. I don't know what proportion of the Eurostar
trains are operated by Eurostar UK (rather than the equivalent Belgian
and French companies), but all the ones I get to/from Brussels seem to
have French speaking crew.
--
Roland Perry