[LuganoPirate]

Sorry to bring it up again, but a massive airport built in the North Sea serving London, Amsterdam and Brussels (and probably a few other airports as well) by high speed rail links.

[LeTigre]

Here is a sensible option in my view, but progress will not start until 2019:

-Build another runway at Gatwick
-Build a ‘Low Cost Carrier Terminal’ like at KUL/SIN to keep landing charges for them low and ensure they are not forced out
-Build the high speed rail to LHR as per the Heathwick proposal and ensure using the train is free, including in the flight ticket if transfer is necessary

No one solution is good enough but probably this collective solution comes in at about £10bn, breaks no contract and will not substantially increase flights over densely populated areas.

[SimonS1]

It will never happen. The type of ‘pie in the sky’ article that the government puts out when it needs to cover some type of disaster in another area.

[transtraxman]

The problem with governments is that they do not tell you the whole truth, usually because they are afraid of upsetting too many voters at the same time – divide and rule.

Why does the government want a HSR2 spur into Heathrow? The idea on its own is absurd. The results would never justify the cost. However, if you plan to have direct trains from the airport to other cities then the idea falls into place. Run trains from Heathrow to Manchester and Leeds so the reduction in air traffic releases slots. With the resulting reduction in journey times then there would be knock-on effects for traffic to Newcastle and Scotland.Government thinking is that more slots would be freed up. As a result the need for a third runway disappears.

The connection Heathrow – Gatwick is part of the same thinking. Provide a fast link between the two airports and you, thus, reduce the need for competing flights from both airports, treating Gatwick as another terminal, and being able to use any spare capacity there for long haul slots.

What the Government does not say is that if you continue the rail line the 73 kms. due east you arrive at Ashford to link up with the Channel Tunnel. As a result you can offer direct trains services from both Heathrow and Gatwick to Paris, Brussles, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Düsseldorf, Cologne and even Frankfurt.

How many slots would then be released for other services? The Government would consider a lot but the real number would probably not be so many in an expanding market.

Take the idea further and connect the the Gatwick – Heathrow link through T4, T1/3 and T5 to the recently mentioned Heathrow – Reading link. Then you have your connections west and northwards.

Pie in the sky? I do not think so.

NB: If this new link is Heathwick , then is the Reading – Heathrow link Readrow? Horrible and stupid names.

[Bucksnet]

There is of course no airport at Reading, but yes the name is stupid.

The Heathrow-Reading link is a stupid idea. All that needs to happen is that a new station needs to be built where the Heathrow Express line joins the Great Western Mainline. All trains would then be required to stop there, and connections could be made without having to go into Paddington and back out again.

[SimonS1]

The government is incapable of any joined up or long term thinking. How does this fit with HS2, the airport in the Thames Estuary etc etc.

Plus it will be decades before anything happens if at all – legislation, planning, public enquiries, changes of government/policy plus the inevitable financial mis-management that always dogs things like this.

The requirement for private capital will mean eye wateringly high fares as private sector snouts enter the trough.

After all we are still awaiting “Thameslink 2000” to be delivered, latest projection for completion is 2018!! Still what’s the odd 18 years here or there….

[AMcWhirter]

Bucksnet writes “All that needs to happen is that a station needs to be built where the Heathrow Express joins the GW main line. All trains would then be required to stop there and connections could be made … “

I’ve always thought it a pity that this concept never happened. But it could so easily have become reality were it not for the matter of planning permission.

In the early months of Heathrow Express operation, a station called Heathrow Junction was the temporary terminus for the train. It was located just south of the GW mainline and journey time to/from Paddington was around 12 mins. Passengers were then bussed to the terminals in separate busses. It might sound like a palava but, assuming traffic was flowing freely, it probably took less time overall because you were dropped off right outside the terminal.

But because there was no permanent planning permission, Heathrow Junction was removed soon after the trains ran through to Heathrow Central.

[ConstantFlyer1]

I want to fly on business (hand luggage only) from, say, Newcastle to Zagreb. Sadly, there is no direct flight, so I’ll need to change somewhere. I want convenience, comfort and value for money. Ideally, I’d like a quick (but not too quick!) transfer, airside.

I certainly do not want to have to change terminals, let alone airports. I do not want to stack over a busy city or travel on its overcrowded transport system in rush hour. I do not want to sit on the plane at the departure gate for 40 minutes waiting for a slot, then taxi only to queue for 25 minutes for take-off. I therefore rule out Heathrow for my change of plane.

Options include BRU, CDG, LGW(S) and PRG. After checking timings and prices, I choose LGW(S) out (flybe and Croatia Airlines) and PRG back (Czech Airlines and Jet2.com).

Whatever decision is taken about a LHR-LGW train link, people like me who live in the regions will continue to avoid the hassle and congestion on the ground and in the air in and around (and over) London. The idea of Boris Island Airport is, for me as a regional resident, very attractive. If it were as good as Hong Kong or the new Dubai, I’d use it all the time. However, until then my company and I will take our business elsewhere.

[NTarrant]

Whilst I can understand the problems you face ConstantFlyer1 being in the regions. However, I can’t work out your logic in you saying “people like me who live in the regions will continue to avoid the hassle and congestion on the ground and in the air in and around (and over) London”.

Yet your trip to Zargeb is via Gatwick (London) and you would find Boris Island attractive (London also)!

[ConstantFlyer1]

Thank you for pointing that out, NT! My logic for travelling via Gatwick was that I could fly in to the South terminal from Newcastle (flybe), and then out on Croatia, also from South. There would be no ground transportation involved. Also, flying to Gatwick usually involved considerably less stacking over London than flying into Heathrow, and less queueing for take-off. My argument supported the ruling out of Heathrow as a transit point, not Gatwick or other London airports.

I would like to see Boris Island Airport built somewhere suitable in the UK to help support the UK economy; however, it matters little to me whether it is in the Thames Estuary or off the West Coast of Scotland. As long as I can fly there from Newcastle, and have an easy transfer on to my chosen destination worldwide, I shall be happy. I know it’s unlikely, but I can dream, can’t I?…:)

[ChrisBuda82]

Boris Island Airport is a good idea but only good for London, LHR is at a good spot, with regards to space it not been planed very well lots of wasted space but this due more to how old the airport is. They did a good job of T5a,b,c But T3 even with the facelift looks like a dump and The layout of T East looks crap. They not learned from T5 but just thinking about the short term.

We need to look to the new airport that being built in Berlin they are thinking and doing what we should be doing they taken 3 small airports and made one big one.

If LHR need to expand they should do so as it brings a lot of money in to the UK, old building can be moved to new sites to be saved.

[AMcWhirter]

ChrisBuda82 writes: “We need to look to the new airport that being built in Berlin they are thinking and doing what we should be doing they taken 3 small airports and made one big one.”

The so-called “new Berlin Brandenburg airport is merely a rebuild of the current Schonefeld facility.

It’s not the answer for London because what they are doing in Berlin, by closing two airports (Tempelhof + Tegel), is reducing overall air capacity.

This airport, like Heathrow, will also impose curfew restrictions on flights. In Berlin’s case these are between 00.00 and 05.00hrs and these could hamper early morning arrivals from Asia.

Surely, the capital of Germany deserves better ?

[LeTigre]

Once again the UK is ending up spending on billions for old technology. Just like the wheel-on-rail high speed system is just the last iteration of Victorian technology (maglev is the future), so a new airport in the estuary is old technology. A truly innovative British design for an airport should be sought, not an update to Lord Foster’s 20 year old HKG airport design (as good as it may be). This is a strength of companies such as Priestmangoode.

A truly innovative airport should encompass:
-High speed rail interface to provide transfers
-Terminals that minimize wasted space (preferably underground)
-Full renewable power, not the measly 20% that is so overly marketed
-Pollution offsetting by planting forests around the airport, or other methods
-An all encompassing leisure facility (like SIN)
-A design that makes travelling easy- think straight lines, check-in, security, air-side, gate (this works at T5)
-Airport rest/sleep pods (for everyone, cheap to use)
-An iconic shape
-No wasteful overuse of concrete, which is inferior to many other materials
-Public transport for all, to avoid large and needless car parks- a visual blight and environmental plague of concrete and pollutants

This is my blueprint. In an ideal situation Renzo Piano would be the architect.

[ChrisBuda82]

The Berlin Brandenburg airport new airport part more than doubles the airport and with planed expansion to add capacity could triple it and has good transport links, I think Tempelhof or Tegel has been closed for many years.

What My point was did not get across was that lots of little airports do not make sense, there area to the north of LHR could double the area of the airport then would not need a link to Gatwick.

[ChrisBuda82]

Hengli123 I like what you posted I think the same.

[Author]

Posts