Possible new rail link LHR LGW
Back to Forum- This topic has 100 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 22 Aug 2014
at 15:16 by SimonS1.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
DisgustedofSwieqiParticipantJust saw this story in the Telegraph, which is interesting as some of us were thinking about a rail link on the ‘Airships’ thread.
8 Oct 2011
at 05:32
BucksnetParticipantMore pie in the sky thinking.
What is needed is a short link from LHR to the existing line at Feltham. Then the Heathrow Express can run to Waterloo as well as Paddington, and even carry on to Bank along the Waterloo & City line. It can stop at Clapham Junction, where connections can be made to many other services including the Gatwick Express.
Job done.
8 Oct 2011
at 07:33
ScandinavianParticipantInteresting that this is proposed to create a “one” hub airport. From a passenger perspective why would one choose to take a 35 mile, 15 minute transfer when you can choose true one hub airports elsewhere in Europe.
I can’t really understand how this solves capacity problems either.
Used Gatwick South for the first time in year this week. The makeover is desperately needed. Coming from Scandinavia it felt like arriving back in the 1960s.
8 Oct 2011
at 09:33
DisgustedofSwieqiParticipantBucksnet, NTarrant
I tend to agree with you that it is far more pragmatic to use existing lines, even if the service is slower.
Given the uncertainty of M23/25 journey involved and the tortuous rail/tube alternative, I would happily use the service with a 40 minute block time.
Scandinavian, I am tending to connect more via MUC or ZRH these days for the reasons you suggest, although the KM/EY interface in LHR T4 works pretty well.
With regard to LGW S, there is still work to be done, but I have been impressed by the investment over the past 12 months and also by the change in attitude in the security people, who are now largely professional, polite and often friendly – well done, I am pleased to recognise a very good start to a massive piece of work.
Tim2sms
Now that would be interesting, I like the CDG air/TGV interface.
8 Oct 2011
at 09:46
FlyingChinamanParticipantA 15-minute transit time is just acceptable but a 40 minutes journey is like hopping over to AMS or CDG!!!! Too long!!!!!!
As Scandinavian said, why not use a TRUE one-hub airport!!!!
I don’t an aviation future for London is it is just patch works.
8 Oct 2011
at 09:56
DisgustedofSwieqiParticipantFC
Whilst I have sympathy for your view of London as a patchwork, a 40 minute transfer, avoiding the uncertainty of congested roads would be useful.
One should also remember that the hop to AMS involves checking in, waiting, boarding, taxiing, flying, landing (at Haarlem), taxiing (for a looooong time) and then deplaning, clearing immigration and customs.
So more like 3 hours 🙂
8 Oct 2011
at 11:35
dutchyankeeParticipantDoS, I am a bit off thread here, but with regard to your comment about landing in Haarlem, I imagine you mean on the Polder runway. Has there ever been a discussion thread on that issue! What a disaster that runway is!! The taxi to the gate can be as long as the flight over!!
8 Oct 2011
at 12:08
FlyingChinamanParticipantDofS,
You missed my point! If am seeing the two London airports as one hub then the 40 minutes travel for flight connections is not an advantage.
You still need to get to the airport whether it is LHR/LGW pair hub. So the argument of extra time for using other European airport hubs is not a valid one!
8 Oct 2011
at 15:56
DisgustedofSwieqiParticipant“You missed my point! If am seeing the two London airports as one hub then the 40 minutes travel for flight connections is not an advantage.”
No I didn’t, but as a pragmatist, a 40 minute connection would make flying in to one and out of the other a more attractive option, even though not as attractive as a single hub . If you wish, deduct 30 minutes for not clearing immigration and customs and say 2h30 to a point where one can transfer in AMS.
It all comes down to schedule convenience and end to end duration, which may or may not favour London. For example, I prefer to fly MLA/LHR/AUH over MLA/LCA/DXB, as the former arrives at 0700 and the latter at around midnight. The extra 3 hours flying time of the former is irrelevant, as I sleep overnight.
8 Oct 2011
at 16:01
NTarrantParticipantFlyingChinaman I have to agree with Disgusted having made the journey between LGW and LHR a number of times, the coach journey is very much in the hands of the M25. Whereas a 40 minute train journey is much more preferable and only likely to have short delays if any. I don’t think that you could essentially say that LGW and LHR could be one hub in the same sense as T3 to T5 or whatever at LHR.
Equally I don’t think you can compare LGW/LHR to AMS. Otherwise you might consider JFK and LGA
8 Oct 2011
at 16:19
Tete_de_cuveeParticipantIn normal circumstances I would agree with Bucksnet that it’ll never happen in a month of Sundays. However with £75 billion of quantitative easing to be injected into the economy this is best achieved with infra-structural projects. These have the advantages of providing short-medium term employment, long term benefit without long term financial commitment.
The £5 billion connection mooted is a direct high speed rail, it would tick the right boxes for an economic kick-start – if it can get off the ground within 18 months… which I doubt.
8 Oct 2011
at 16:23 -
AuthorPosts
