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

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. 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).

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

Then there is the question of how much traffic Heathrow will generate
compared with a central London terminus. If, say, only 5% of
passengers to/from Birmingham/Middlesborough want to go to LHR as
opposed to Euston, will the operators actually want to stop their
trains there at all? I could well imagine the station ending up like
another Stratford International, with short distance trains stopping
there, but the long distance ones sailing through without stopping.

Then question would then present itself to any operator with a UK-
classic compatible HS train whether running Euston - (non stop at LHR)
- Birmingham - Middlesborough is actually any faster than running
Euston (WCML to near Watford, then change to HS2) - Birmingham -
Middlesborough. If not, then perhaps we would end up with a nice
tunnel from Euston to LHR and up to near Watford that has no service
at all.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and when
we're spending mega-bucks to make trains run faster, it seems folly to
slow them down again by taking a reverse S through Heathrow.

Robin

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.

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

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:26:57 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

Which goes to show that you don't understand the project at all.

No, I disagree with the view that it is the only way to provide the
required capacity elsewhere on the network. It is an expensive and
poor way to do it.

We should be electrifying and increasing capacity on existing lines by
lengthening trains - to me that would mean 12 or 16-car EMUs on all
London commuter lines and 4 to 8 car trains in every other big city.
On IC, it would mean 12 or 14-car Pendolinos etc, and the building of
a load of standardised Mk3 and Mk4 compatible rolling stock to do the
same on other IC lines. Platforms could be extended, but where this
is not feasible SDO could be used.

Much beyond that, and IMO we should start looking at why ever more
people are travelling, particularly commuting, and looking as to how
to discourage it.

That then only really leaves Scotland, which for the numbers involved
might as well stay with air.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:32:43 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

"I don't believe it!"

Careful, Neil, you are beginning to sound like Victor Meldrew. ;-)



Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

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).
--
Roland Perry

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�.

(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.

--
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
Neil Williams wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:26:57 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

Which goes to show that you don't understand the project at all.

No, I disagree with the view that it is the only way to provide the
required capacity elsewhere on the network. It is an expensive and
poor way to do it.

Why?


We should be electrifying and increasing capacity on existing lines by
lengthening trains - to me that would mean 12 or 16-car EMUs on all
London commuter lines and 4 to 8 car trains in every other big city.

Exacly how does that help capacity on the WCML which is already electrified
and running the longest trains that Euston can cope with for the most part?

On IC, it would mean 12 or 14-car Pendolinos etc, and the building of
a load of standardised Mk3 and Mk4 compatible rolling stock to do the
same on other IC lines. Platforms could be extended, but where this
is not feasible SDO could be used.

All very laudable but where does that impact on the case for HS2?


Much beyond that, and IMO we should start looking at why ever more
people are travelling, particularly commuting, and looking as to how
to discourage it.

Well the current government are doing something to address that problem,
people without jobs don't need to commute.


That then only really leaves Scotland, which for the numbers involved
might as well stay with air.


The numbers are?

What about freight?

--
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 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).

Err, you haven't actually stated any reasons so how can T5 have different
reasons?

--
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/

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:12:22 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:

It's this "we have to have the complete solution at day one or we don't
start" attitude that causes everything to be cancelled in this country.

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

Well I was actually speaking generally not wrt to this plan. But as you
have made some points that I disagree with I will continue

a lot of passengers won't want to use Crossrail (which as a result
will probably end up overcrowded)

But a lot will. A lot of passages don't want to get off a Birmingham train
at "International", but they still all stop there.

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.

But I admit my preference is that it should not go ahead.

What should not go ahead? The dog leg to the airport? The station at OOC.
HS2?

tim