On Jul 22, 9:07*am, allantracy wrote:
First we had Foster (on the IEP) and now Mawhinney (on HS2). *Lord
alone knows how these people were chosen for these tasks.

I couldn’t agree more with everything there.

However, there is one alternative you do not mention.

Why not let the market decide what HS2 should look like?

In other words, let’s just build the most cost effective solution for
the biggest potential market.

I’m willing to bet such a solution would not only look rather
different to the current proposal for HS2 but it would be rather more
viable as well.

The current proposal is grandiose and completely OTT, almost
guaranteed to be an expensive white elephant, and what’s that going to
achieve politically for any future proposals such as Scotland, the
East Midlands or Middlesbrough?

Absolutely correct. One suspects that Forbes or Watkin would look at
the need and figure out a cost effective upgrade to the GW route to
Birmingham.

On Jul 22, 9:11*am, 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.

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.

The link forward to Euston need not be especially fast. It needs to
exist, and be off sufficiently large loading guage. I really love the
idea of Euston being replaced!

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:43:10 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

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's easy to criticise Heathrow. The central area is cramped and
dirty and the siting of Terminals 4 and 5 could not be much further
apart. The terminals are of inconsistent design and none could be
described as world class, not even the newest of them (T5). Transport
links are very poor, with chronic congestion on the M25, M4, A4 and
A30. Public transport links are particularly weak, with all the signs
of a lack of any strategic approach over the years as to how Heathrow
should be served.

I think most would agree that, taken as a whole, Heathrow sucks.

But there is one thing about Heathrow that means it cannot be
dismissed, brushed aside or ignored. That is the fact that it is used
by *66 million* passengers a year (2009 figures).

Heathrow is the fifth busiest airport in the world. It handles more
international passengers than any other airport in the world. It is
the busiest airport in Europe - Paris CDG serves 57 million, Frankfurt
51 million, Madrid 48 million and Schiphol 44 million.

66 million passengers a year averages out at nearly 1.3 million per
week or just under 200,000 people per day. Many of those are transit
passengers, but the remainder create a huge demand for domestic travel
to and from the airport. That's why there is such potential for a
station on High Speed 2.

Not only would such a station serve people who currently travel
to/from the airport by road, it would also serve many who take onward
internal flights to destinations elsewhere in Britain.

So there's the potential. No matter how much we as individuals may
dislike Heathrow (and I hate the place almost as much as Neil does) we
cannot deny that a huge untapped market exists for rail. That market
would not be well served by the HS2 station at Old Oak Common -
something much better needs to be provided.

The question is what. But you don't get the right answer to that
question by asking a has-been former Secretary of State for Transport
who was there for less than a year and wasn't any good at the job in
the first place to review a half-baked and thoroughly incompetent
proposal for a high speed line to Birmingham to see if it is worth
serving Heathrow (that should be taken as read, because of the 66
million).

You stand a far better chance by commissioning strategic studies then
appointing a prominent, able person to decide on the way forward and
champion the project. We need someone who has real vision and the
determination to push the project onward to completion despite all the
siren voices who say we should have done something else, or nothing at
all. Instead, we have the usual British muddle, management by
committee and the sheer amateurism that afflicts so many major
projects. Consult by all means, but for heaven's sake *decide* what
to do rather than fudge it.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:08:25 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

Of course, AirTrack is meant to greatly improve Heathrow's connectivity
to the SWT routes, and it should be in place years before HS2 is even
started.


It's a sticking plaster. It doesn't even begin to address the huge
problem of people travelling to and from Heathrow by road.

Heathrow Express/Connect was much the same. They are worthwhile
projects in their own right, but are essentially local in nature, and
made very little difference to the overall problem.

On Jul 22, 6:17*pm, allantracy wrote:

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.

According to wonkypedia, Leeds/Bradford had BMI flights to Heathrow
until March '09, then since June '09 Flybe has flown from LBA to
Gatwick.

(Oh, and Stansted has no "a" - but perhaps it should have, given
that's how everyone wants to spell it!)

In message
1506 wrote:

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.

That would require a coherent development plan that Heathrow hasn't had since
the 1950s. In the days when there were just the three terminals in the
central area, having a single station made sense. the Piccadilly line
extension took so long coming that they were able to incorporate T4 into it
without too much hassle but T5 is a whole different problem.

[snip]

--
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/

On Jul 22, 6:48*pm, Bruce wrote:
[snip]
So there's the potential. *No matter how much we as individuals may
dislike Heathrow (and I hate the place almost as much as Neil does) we
cannot deny that a huge untapped market exists for rail. *That market
would not be well served by the HS2 station at Old Oak Common -
something much better needs to be provided.

I'm not sure why that's a given - I can't see why a properly designed
high-quality hub at OOC couldn't or wouldn't work. Looking at say CDG,
yes, there is an integral TGV station, but one needs to use the CDGVAL
airport transit to get to terminals 1 or 3 - there'd be a similar
issue at Heathrow.


[snip]*Consult by all means, but for heaven's sake *decide* what
to do rather than fudge it.

Nah, fudge please. Being serious, I agree that the whole HS2 notion
seems rather lacking in proper foundations (what's it for, what are
its fundamental aims, what's the research to back it all up etc).

However, perhaps one could argue that it's an example realpolitik -
the Tories in opposition mooted the idea of an HSL, Adonis in
government decided to call their bluff by commissioning a detailed
report, now the Tories are in power there's a degree of momentum to
the idea so they can't simply put it on the back-burner and forget
about it for a while, they've got to do - or be seen to do -
something. All that said nothing's going to happen any time soon - but
maybe HS2 has now gaining a position on the broad long-term political
agenda, something that'll come up in future elections and something
future governments will promise to progress. Maybe.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:34:55 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

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.


Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, has repeatedly
restated the coalition government's intention to start the project in
2015. He has said it often enough that I almost believe him. ;-)

There is a lot of work to do between now and then, so we will be able
to judge the government's progress towards that 2015 goal.

"Graeme" wrote in message
...
In message
"Recliner" wrote:

"allantracy" wrote in message

Ok, why is going to Heathrow bad? Wouldn't it enable international
arriving passengers with short-haul connections, e.g. to make these
by rail, rather than by air?


Name one.

Those international passengers currently using internal air
connections that could make use of HS2 as an alternative are very
small in number, just Manchester really.

Heathrow is terrible for land transport,
buses which take ages, Underground which takes ages and has little
space for luggage, or rail which only gets you to Paddington.

Yes, which is why local rail connections at Heathrow need to be
improved far more urgently than providing HS2.

It would be rather missing the point to give Heathrow a station on HS2
whilst you still can't get to such places as Reading, Guildford,
Croydon, Windsor or Wimbledon by rail.

Of course, AirTrack is meant to greatly improve Heathrow's connectivity
to the SWT routes, and it should be in place years before HS2 is even
started.


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

As it's been "coming soon" for the last 25 years I'm not holding my breath.

tim

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
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!

I was replying to a comment about justifying OOC not being built, so the
fare would be from Euston (to Heathrow).

tim