In message , at 14:49:32 on
Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Recliner remarked:
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.

What offends me is not a comparison with other airports, but the fact
they had a golden opportunity to properly integrate a station, and they
blew it.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:06:29 on Thu,
22 Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:
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?

There's a long "receiving line" where people stand holding up names etc,
and that forms to the south of the exit that most people appear to
emerge from (is it the green lane, I don't know) so people just troop
along following the crowd, getting ever further from the station.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, bob wrote:

On 22 July, 00:06, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, wrote:
Too bad. It'd be nice to see Heathrow get a Schipol-style set up.

Or even a Gatwick-style set up.

The differerence here is that Gatwick is acutally on the logical route
of a main line between London and Brighton (indeed, the railway was
there first). The idea of routing HS2 through the main Heathrow site
has large numbers of problems:

Heathrow is a very badly connected location WRT the existing railway
network, so it would have to be an intermediate stop on the way to a
more useful terminus.

Well, yes. Gatwick-style.

Paddington is not a particularly easy site to expand to accommodate the
HS2 trains, nor is it particularly well connected to other London
railway stations, while Euston has capacity to expand, and will have
capacity freed up by the transfer of WCML IC services to HS2, as well as
being as well connected to the other London stations as you can
realistically get (especially if the Euston Square - Euston proper
connection is improved).

Fair enough. So route North - Heathrow - Euston.

Going from Middlesborough to Euston via Birmingham and Heathrow will not
only be a significant diversion,

In this discussion, about Heathrow, Birmingham is a red herring. The extra
mileage related to going via Heathrow is the difference betwween a
Birmingham - Euston route and Birmingham - Heathrow - Euston route. Based
on this route for the non-Heathrow option:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=http...ml%2F58620.kml

The difference is that a 14 mile section from Old Oak Common to around
Chalfont St Peter (where the line crosses the M25) could be replaced with
a 21.8 section that follows the GWML as far as the Grand Union canal (6.7
miles), then goes directly to Heathrow T123 and on to T5 (4.8 miles), then
out and along the M25 to Chalfont St Peter (10.3 miles). That's an
additional 7.8 miles. Even if the trains can only do 30 mph average over
the extra distance, that's 15 minutes extra time.

I'm not suggesting that this is the best route (or even a possible one),
but i think it's indicative.

You might be able to shortcut some of the wiggles in the M25, saving a few
miles and enabling higher speed. I'm not sure about that.

but the extra mileage needed will all be in high land value areas, full
of residents who are well used to fighting planning battles (see
Heathrow expansion and the West London Tram), so realistically the whole
extra route milage will have to be in tunnel.

The 6.7 miles along the existing line is a widening of an existing
formation. The 4.8 miles through to T5 would indeed need to be in tunnel.
Most of the 10.3 miles along the M25 could, i imagine, be on the surface -
you would need some tunnel to get from T5 to the M25, but apart from that,
it would be a widening of an existing transport corridor. The currently
proposed 14 mile section this would replace is all on the surface, and is
either a widening of an existing formation, or the restoration of an old
one. So, that's 6.7 miles of tunnel, and 1.1 miles on the surface.

I've snipped the rest of your post, which dealt with the problem of
whether there would be enough demand to entice long-distance services to
stop at Heathrow. I can't argue with any of it - it's likely that the
demand for North - Heathrow will be small, and so the inclusion of stops
will hang on demand for Heathrow - London and beyond from which the
long-distance operators might be able to profit. And imposed government
policy, of course.

tom

--
sapere aude!

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 15:06:29 on Thu,
22 Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:
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?

There's a long "receiving line" where people stand holding up names
etc, and that forms to the south of the exit that most people appear
to emerge from (is it the green lane, I don't know) so people just
troop along following the crowd, getting ever further from the
station.

Yes, after my first arrival in T5, I learned to make an immediate right
turn, after which the HEx and LU stations are not far off.

On 2010\07\22 11:43, tim.... wrote:

but will prefer to take a taxi from
a central London station.

I have to disagree with that view. ISTM that there will be very few
passengers of a public transport system who would "prefer" to add a 70 pound
taxi fare onto the end when a simple interchange to a "metro" system (could)
exist.

70 GBP in a taxi from Old Oak would take you to Romford!

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, 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,

Space-efficient!

dirty,

Not in my experience.

hostile place.

Not in my experience.

tom

--
Get a ****ing hobby that isn't breathing, browsing 4chan, or fapping. --
The Well Cultured Anonymous, on Manners

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, 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, even if it's cleaner and a little less
overcrowded.

I concur. It is complete rubbish - it's St Pancras writ large,
flashy-looking but a functional disaster.

tom

--
Get a ****ing hobby that isn't breathing, browsing 4chan, or fapping. --
The Well Cultured Anonymous, on Manners

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

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...

heh heh

Arrivals was what I was thinking of, especially when the on-time airline is
90 minutes late again and the last train is long gone.

--
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 15:06:29 on Thu,
22 Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:
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?

There's a long "receiving line" where people stand holding up names etc,
and that forms to the south of the exit that most people appear to
emerge from (is it the green lane, I don't know) so people just troop
along following the crowd, getting ever further from the station.

OK so people are sheep, is there adequate signage?

--
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
Basil Jet wrote:

On 2010\07\22 11:43, tim.... wrote:

but will prefer to take a taxi from
a central London station.

I have to disagree with that view. ISTM that there will be very few
passengers of a public transport system who would "prefer" to add a 70 pound
taxi fare onto the end when a simple interchange to a "metro" system (could)
exist.

70 GBP in a taxi from Old Oak would take you to Romford!

Not if you are an American tourist...

--
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/