In message , at 13:16:51 on Thu,
22 Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:
Err, you haven't actually stated any reasons so how can T5 have different
reasons?

I'm trying to head off the people who say "but T5 is such an
improvement".

In my recent experience it is definitely an improvement over T3 but the point
is you haven't stated how the reasons are different.

T5 is difficult to get around, even if it's cleaner and a little less
overcrowded.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:05:30 on Thu, 22
Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:
I think Roland's problem with T5 is that the station access is not where he
wants it to be. I've never arrived there by train so haven't experienced the
problem.

The car park access is just as bad, then after checking in you have to
trek to either the extreme left or right of the concourse to find
security. And so on.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:41:39 on
Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Recliner remarked:
I think Roland's problem with T5 is that the station access is not
where he wants it to be. I've never arrived there by train so
haven't experienced the problem.

I've arrived there by Tube quite a few times, and think the stations are
perfectly well situated.

The station is quite a distance from the customs exit, and by default
people seem to be sent in exactly the wrong direction (ie to the south
not the north) as they emerge.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 13:41:39 on
Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Recliner remarked:
I think Roland's problem with T5 is that the station access is not
where he wants it to be. I've never arrived there by train so
haven't experienced the problem.

I've arrived there by Tube quite a few times, and think the stations
are perfectly well situated.

The station is quite a distance from the customs exit, and by default
people seem to be sent in exactly the wrong direction (ie to the south
not the north) as they emerge.

Yes, I agree with you about the default direction, but the distance is
much less than at, say, FRA or AMS.

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:05:30 on Thu, 22
Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:
I think Roland's problem with T5 is that the station access is not where
he wants it to be. I've never arrived there by train so haven't
experienced the problem.

The car park access is just as bad, then after checking in you have to
trek to either the extreme left or right of the concourse to find
security. And so on.

Must be a different T5 then. I've had no trouble getting from the car park
to the check-in desks and one security entrance is about a third of the way
down from the right hand end. I thought the idea of sticking the left hand
entrance near the end was because it was close to the station entrance so
people who'd pre-printed their boarding cards and had only hand luggage could
go straight through.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:16:51 on Thu,
22 Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:
Err, you haven't actually stated any reasons so how can T5 have different
reasons?

I'm trying to head off the people who say "but T5 is such an
improvement".

In my recent experience it is definitely an improvement over T3 but the
point is you haven't stated how the reasons are different.

T5 is difficult to get around,

Not in my experience but perhaps we have different perceptions of these
things. T3 is a pig to get around and is very claustrophobic. Haven't used
T1/2 for years so can't comment on them.

even if it's cleaner and a little less overcrowded.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
"Recliner" wrote:

"Graeme" wrote in message

In message


Mizter T wrote:


On Jul 22, 11:08 am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
10:43:10 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Neil Williams
remarked:

I fail to understand the obsession with denigrating Heathrow on
this group, I assume it is because it is in the south.

No, it's because it's a very poor airport by most criteria I can
think of. (I live in the south, so I don't quite see why I would
denigrate it on that basis).

It has a lot of destinations, and quite a few very cheap flights.
But ergonomically it's a pit (even T5, but for different reasons).

Is T5 really a "pit"? I wonder if you mean that demi-literally, what
with the apparent requirement to go down and up lots...

I think Roland's problem with T5 is that the station access is not
where he wants it to be. I've never arrived there by train so
haven't experienced the problem.

I've arrived there by Tube quite a few times, and think the stations are
perfectly well situated. The one time I drove there (and parked in the
business car park), it was far less convenient.



Not used the business car park for T5, I use an offsite car park so turn up
in their minibus.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:41:39 on
Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Recliner remarked:
I think Roland's problem with T5 is that the station access is not
where he wants it to be. I've never arrived there by train so
haven't experienced the problem.

I've arrived there by Tube quite a few times, and think the stations are
perfectly well situated.

The station is quite a distance from the customs exit, and by default
people seem to be sent in exactly the wrong direction (ie to the south
not the north) as they emerge.

Is that a signage problem or just the fact that the customs halls point you
south as you leave?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
04:50:51 on Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Stephen Furley
remarked:

Ok, why is going to Heathrow bad?

Because it's an overcrowded, dirty, hostile place.

You've already admitted that T5 is clean, IME T4 was fine as well, it's the
Central Area that has the problems and they are in the process of trying to
sort that out.[1] It's no more hostile than any other airport. As for
overcrowding, Stanstead late on a summer Sunday night is far worse than
anything I've ever seen at Heathrow.

[1] I don't think they will succede without a major rethink of the whole
central layout. But that's another story.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message , at 15:10:56 on Thu,
22 Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:


Ok, why is going to Heathrow bad?

Because it's an overcrowded, dirty, hostile place.

You've already admitted that T5 is clean,

I also said it has other problems.

IME T4 was fine as well,

Showing its age badly.

it's the
Central Area that has the problems and they are in the process of trying to
sort that out.[1] It's no more hostile than any other airport.

It always seems to me to be at the poor end of the spectrum, not just
compared to regional airports, but compared to many major overseas
airports.

As for overcrowding, Stanstead late on a summer Sunday night is far
worse than anything I've ever seen at Heathrow.

I'll try not leave on a summer Sunday night then ... too late! I already
have a booking...
--
Roland Perry