In message , at 16:22:57 on Thu,
22 Jul 2010, Graeme remarked:

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?

Clearly not, for the sheep-people.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:36:43 on
Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Recliner remarked:

Ideally, there should be separate exits for those waiting to be
greeted, and those heading straight for the station/car park/taxi rank,
etc.

Exactly, and although perhaps unconventional they could have a "hand
baggage only" exit that bypasses baggage reclaim (but has its own
customs) and leads direct to the railway station, without having to go
all the way up-and-back-down-again.
--
Roland Perry

No. *We have to have a useful solution from Day 1. *A line that stops
somewhere in the suburbs of West London is not a useful solution when
a lot of passengers won't want to use Crossrail (which as a result
will probably end up overcrowded) but will prefer to take a taxi from
a central London station.


Never heard of backward compatibility?

It’s one of the most useful features of European high-speed railway
technology and, guess what, just about every other European railway
has made use of it for their high-speed solutions and they’ve all
being doing high speed rail at least twenty years longer than we have.

A pragmatic and cost effective solution to HS2 should initially start
somewhere north of Watford and make use of existing (upgraded) tracks
and stations for the London bit.

Cheap as chips.

On Jul 22, 5:11*pm, allantracy wrote:
I note however the notion he seems to be putting forward that OOC could
itself be the London terminus of the HS2 line. I suppose that could spare
the significant costs of adapting/ rebuilding Euston, plus the costs of
bringing the line into Euston, but despite Crossrail it'd mean access wasn't
so easy.

The existing WCML passes close to Old Oak Common and it could get you
to Euston if so desired.

I know. I'm quite familiar with the geography of the area. There are
many ways one can envisage bringing HS2 from OOC into Euston, with
most sensible variations utilising the WCML corridor in one way or
another.


If all HS2 services are to stop at Old Oak Common then building a 200
mph new railway just for the short distance further to Euston is very
silly.

I mean, the trains probably wouldn’t get much above 60 mph before they
would be slowing down again.

Just as well I never suggested "building a 200 mph new railway" for
such a link then, isn't it. (As an aside, do you realise that the
London tunnelled sections of the CTRL/ HS1 are subject to a 100mph
limit.)

All I was saying was that the thinking behind Mawhinney floating the
idea of terminating the line at OOC might have been that of saving
money. It could also simply be something of a straw man, included in
the report for completeness (so to prove they've thought the
unthinkable) but not something that he or others seriously considers
would end up happening.

Anyhow I find detailed debate about the route of a prospective HS2
line a bit difficult to take too seriously at the moment - given the
circumstances, it all seems so academic and hypothetical and far flung
to take in any other way.

"Graeme" wrote

You are making the rash assumption that Airtrack will ever actually
happen.

BAA have announced that they intend to use the money they'd saved up for the
third runway to pay for Airtrack.

Peter

On Jul 22, 9:54*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Graeme" wrote

You are making the rash assumption that Airtrack will ever actually
happen.

BAA have announced that they intend to use the money they'd saved up for the
third runway to pay for Airtrack.

Peter

Well, THAT, at least is good news.

Name one.

Oops, missed out a word. *Birmingham was the one I was thinking of,
but there must be others.

There are currently no internal air services from Birmingham to
Heathrow and there hasn't been such a service since the 1970s.

There are flights from Leeds to London but I believe those head in a
Stanstead or (London Luton) direction.

On Jul 22, 1:37*am, bob wrote:
On 21 July, 19:43, "Paul Scott"
wrote:





... from Mahwinney report. *Available on DfT website.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...whinneyreport/

"I recommend that serious consideration be given to making Old Oak Common
the initial London terminal for the high speed line - and that in the early
stages it be designated London-Old Oak Common (just as Euston would have
been designated London-Euston) - and that effective use be made of the £16
billion Crossrail project and other rail and tube connections to provide
access to passengers` final destinations including Heathrow. "

"I have concluded and recommend that, in the early stages of a high speed
rail network, there is no compelling case for a direct high speed rail link
to Heathrow, and that a London-Old Oak Common interchange could provide an
appropriate, good quality terminus and connection point to the airport.
(paragraph 46)"

I recall very similar comments being made when HS1 was at a similar
stage of planning, suggesting that the the line should terminate at
Stratford, and passengers connecting from there to central London. *If
HS2 follows a similar trajectory, perhaps we'll end up with an
expensive station built at Old Oak Common, with HS2 trains from Euston
to Birmingham whizzing through without stopping there.

Let us hope, that if HS2 is ever constrcted, there will a link north
of Euston and Saint Pancras allowing thru trains to HS1. Logically
these could call at Old Oak Common and/or Stratford for "London".

On Jul 22, 3:12*am, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * Neil Williams wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:25:48 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

Which, within the parameters of still operating the airport, is what they
are doing.

This isn't likely to be enough to really sort it out, though.

Why?



I fail to understand the obsession with the UK's nastiest airport. *

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. *

Such as? *The worst thing about it is it's poor access by public transport
for which I blame Charles Richard Fairey and that ruddy grocer's daughter
with her Great Car Economy .

Its internal links are very poor. IMHO there should be one internal
rail station. Said station should be on an internal transit system
looping thru all terminals.

Heathrow is so bad it is on par with LAX for badness. And, THAT is
quite an achievement.


(I live in the south, so I don't quite see why I would denigrate it on that
basis).

Because it is fashionable on this group to do so.

Not by me!

On Jul 22, 6:37*am, Michael Bell wrote:
In message
* * * * * Graeme wrote:





In message
* * * * * Michael Bell wrote:
In message
* * * * * Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Michael Bell wrote:

In message
ups.com
* * * * * bob wrote:

On 21 July, 19:43, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
... from Mahwinney report. *Available on DfT website.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...whinneyreport/

"I recommend that serious consideration be given to making Old Oak
Common
the initial London terminal for the high speed line - and that in the
early
stages it be designated London-Old Oak Common (just as Euston would have
been designated London-Euston) - and that effective use be made of the
£16
billion Crossrail project and other rail and tube connections to provide
access to passengers` final destinations including Heathrow. "

"I have concluded and recommend that, in the early stages of a high
speed
rail network, there is no compelling case for a direct high speed rail
link
to Heathrow, and that a London-Old Oak Common interchange could
provide an
appropriate, good quality terminus and connection point to the airport.
(paragraph 46)"

I recall very similar comments being made when HS1 was at a similar
stage of planning, suggesting that the the line should terminate at
Stratford, and passengers connecting from there to central London. *If
HS2 follows a similar trajectory, perhaps we'll end up with an
expensive station built at Old Oak Common, with HS2 trains from Euston
to Birmingham whizzing through without stopping there.

Robin

If traffic on HS2 grows as much as it might do (the future is always
uncertain) then it is hard to see local transport from Euston or any
other SINGLE London terminus coping. This obviously also worries HS2..

I see no evidence of it worrying HS2, the proposal to stop short at OOC
is merely a money saving option.

HS2 don't propose stopping at OOC and I think it's silly. It can't
possibly meet the needs.

One way of coping with the problem is to spread the load by running
across London, historical accident has lined up East-West rather than
North-South.

If you weren't so geographically challenged you'd realise it is not a
historical accident.

Explain!

Look at the topography of London. *It's in a river valley that runs
west-east.

The hills north and south aren't particularly steep, they cause no
problem to trains, and crossing the river has never been a problem in
the railway age.

Michael Bell

Most Railway Lines leaving London northwards take a characteristic "S"
route to negotiate the terrain. They also tend to have tunnels. None
of the foregoing was inexpensive to construct.

The Thames bridges didn't come FoC also.