|
Airtrack shelved
[original thread on uk.r - x-posted to utl] On Apr 11, 8:35*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13042740] Not entirely clear whether it's because BAA can't afford it, or whether level crossing delays are an insuperable obstacle. I've been intending to ask whether anyone's been closely following developments on the Airtrack front for a little while - and now this happens - most disappointing. I had wondered just how well this project might progress, what with Philip Hammond being a local MP and seemingly not being too keen on it - hardly an original thought I'm sure. |
Airtrack shelved
On 11 Apr, 20:50, Mizter T wrote:
[original thread on uk.r - x-posted to utl] On Apr 11, 8:35*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13042740] Not entirely clear whether it's because BAA can't afford it, or whether level crossing delays are an insuperable obstacle. I've been intending to ask whether anyone's been closely following developments on the Airtrack front for a little while - and now this happens - most disappointing. I had wondered just how well this project might progress, what with Philip Hammond being a local MP and seemingly not being too keen on it - hardly an original thought I'm sure. IU wonder whether any part of Reading remodelling will now be scrapped?.... Wasn't at least one platform meant to be for AirTrack? |
Airtrack shelved
"Chris" wrote in message
... IU wonder whether any part of Reading remodelling will now be scrapped?.... Wasn't at least one platform meant to be for AirTrack? Yes - but I expect it would be useful anyway, as it allows far more flexibility for the existing FGW and SWT trains, with or without Airtrack. That's no guarantee the scope might not change though, as from what I can see the work hasn't actually reached the point of no return. Paul S |
Airtrack shelved
"tim...." wrote Especially as the long term demand was for the services to Woking/Reading. The Waterloo service was just an add on. To scrap the whole thing because of problems with the waterloo service is nuts. The level crossing problems would affect the Reading and Woking services as well. IIRC among the difficult crossings are Sunningdale and Wokingham. But I suspect that overall Airtrack would have a net beneficial effect on road congestion by making it easier for passengers to the airport to use public transport. Perhaps the idea of Airtrack can be resurrected after Crossrail is up and running, and not as a stand alone service but as an extension of Crossrail. One of the least satisfactory details in the Airtrack plans is that it would dump passengers at T5, forcing those to the Central area to change, and those for T5 to change twice. See inter alia MM's tale of woe at having to change at T123 to get from T5 to HConn with his mountain of luggage. Peter |
Airtrack shelved
How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder,
considering that it is almost two years delayed. |
Airtrack shelved
" wrote:
How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder, considering that it is almost two years delayed. Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. The PRT was going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. But BAA got planning permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so the PRT trial seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of Terminal 5's Business Car Park users. Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission for the third runway and associated works. Now the coalition government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack. Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. The recent confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another possible factor in the decision to curtail investment. |
Airtrack shelved
On Apr 12, 12:53*am, Bruce wrote:
" wrote: How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder, considering that it is almost two years delayed. Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. * The PRT was going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. *But BAA got planning permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so the PRT trial seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of Terminal 5's Business Car Park users. Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission for the third runway and associated works. *Now the coalition government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack. Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. *The recent confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another possible factor in the decision to curtail investment. I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) |
Airtrack shelved
On Apr 12, 7:16*am, ianh wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:53*am, Bruce wrote: " wrote: How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder, considering that it is almost two years delayed. Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. * The PRT was going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. *But BAA got planning permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so the PRT trial seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of Terminal 5's Business Car Park users. Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission for the third runway and associated works. *Now the coalition government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack. Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. *The recent confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another possible factor in the decision to curtail investment. I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Certainly running trials in Januray: http://www.ultraprt.com/news/86/149/...vehicle-trips/ If it does open, it will be a personal incentive to use the business parking rather than longstay. |
Airtrack shelved
In message
, at 23:16:06 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, ianh remarked: I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was quiet time of day? -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack shelved
On Apr 12, 12:53*am, Bruce wrote:
" wrote: .... Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. * .... Terminal 5's Business Car Park users .... Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission for the third runway and associated works. *Now the coalition government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack. Correct. 'Airtrack' - well the concept of it - has been in the planning since the early 1980s - I used to work for BA Airport Policy Planning. In 1983/4 I was fixing a computer in the APP manager Paul Ellis' office in Comet House, and I noticed that on the back of his office door was a map of 'Airtrack' - although it wasn't called that at the time. I asked why didn't they rebuild the line into Heathrow (as part of the GWR branch from West Drayton to Staines). Paul answered that they (BA and BAA prior to Ferovial's takeover) wouldn't get everything approved if they asked for T4, then the widening of the M25, then T5, then 'Airtrack,' and then a Third Runway - all at once. He then stated that BA's and BAA's policy was piecemeal encroachment of the Green Belt. So that's what they did - T4 came first. then the M25 widening, then T5. But the public enquiry for latter was so drawn out, BAA (and BA) were caught lying about future expansion, and the locals were starting to wise up and get organised to protest, that the momentum started to wane. And with the Climate Camp, increasing awareness of the damage that aircraft do to the environment, the general world recession, the cessation of expansion at Heathrow by the Coalition Govt., and Ferovial's own financial woes, all now means that Airtrack is not viable. The opposition of the local councils has also added pressure to drop the project with regards to traffic congestion at innumerable level crossings. CJB. P.S. It is sad that Paul Ellis and his team at BA have wasted their entire working lives and careers trying to get the Third Runway and Airtrack off the ground (so to speak) only to have both project cancelled. What a total waste of time and human talent. |
Airtrack shelved
On 2011\04\12 08:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:16:06 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, ianh remarked: I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was quiet time of day? If it was open and quiet, there would be no cars on the move. |
Airtrack shelved
"Roland Perry" wrote: In message , at 23:16:06 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, ianh remarked: I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was quiet time of day? Still testing, testing, 1-2-3. |
Airtrack shelved
In message , at 13:43:50 on
Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Basil Jet remarked: I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was quiet time of day? If it was open and quiet, there would be no cars on the move. I assumed there wasn't room for all the cars to be queued up at one or other terminal, and they'd be circulating around as a substitute for somewhere to 'park' them. -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack shelved
"Roland Perry" wrote: In message , at 13:43:50 on Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Basil Jet remarked: I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was quiet time of day? If it was open and quiet, there would be no cars on the move. I assumed there wasn't room for all the cars to be queued up at one or other terminal, and they'd be circulating around as a substitute for somewhere to 'park' them. I think that'd be an erroneous assumption - not least because the battery capacity isn't unlimited. |
Airtrack shelved
In message , at 14:34:44 on Tue, 12 Apr
2011, Mizter T remarked: I assumed there wasn't room for all the cars to be queued up at one or other terminal, and they'd be circulating around as a substitute for somewhere to 'park' them. I think that'd be an erroneous assumption - not least because the battery capacity isn't unlimited. If the cars don't have enough battery power to keep going all day, what happens when they get busy? -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack shelved
On 2011\04\12 14:47, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:34:44 on Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Mizter T remarked: I assumed there wasn't room for all the cars to be queued up at one or other terminal, and they'd be circulating around as a substitute for somewhere to 'park' them. I think that'd be an erroneous assumption - not least because the battery capacity isn't unlimited. If the cars don't have enough battery power to keep going all day, what happens when they get busy? New ones will be magicked out of thin air. The same as what happens when a bus pulls up at a stop with 100 people waiting to board, or when the engines start falling off 92 stock. |
Airtrack shelved
ianh wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:53*am, Bruce wrote: " wrote: How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder, considering that it is almost two years delayed. Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. * The PRT was going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. *But BAA got planning permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so the PRT trial seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of Terminal 5's Business Car Park users. Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission for the third runway and associated works. *Now the coalition government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack. Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. *The recent confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another possible factor in the decision to curtail investment. I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) It was supposed to be opened to the public in autumn 2009. Or at least opened to those of the public who use the T5 Business car park: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5s5f87e |
Airtrack shelved
"Mizter T" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote: In message , at 23:16:06 on Mon, 11 Apr 2011, ianh remarked: I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Was it empty because it's not yet open for business, or because it was quiet time of day? Still testing, testing, 1-2-3. The Heathrow PRT must have had the longest period of "operational testing" since the Advanced Passenger Train. The "operational testing" phase started on 7 July 2009. http://preview.tinyurl.com/6an8a4l I have a feeling that the Heathrow PRT will be bidding for a place on a long list of abandoned British public transport projects ... |
Airtrack shelved
On 12/04/2011 07:16, ianh wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:53 am, wrote: wrote: How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder, considering that it is almost two years delayed. Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. The PRT was going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. But BAA got planning permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so the PRT trial seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of Terminal 5's Business Car Park users. Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission for the third runway and associated works. Now the coalition government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack. Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. The recent confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another possible factor in the decision to curtail investment. I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) I've seen them running as well, also sans passengers. I saw one even in an RBS wrap. |
Airtrack shelved
On 12/04/2011 08:19, Paul Weaver wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:16 am, wrote: On Apr 12, 12:53 am, wrote: wrote: How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder, considering that it is almost two years delayed. Airtrack, like the PRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get planning permission for some major development work at Heathrow. The PRT was going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. But BAA got planning permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so the PRT trial seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of Terminal 5's Business Car Park users. Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission for the third runway and associated works. Now the coalition government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack. Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. The recent confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another possible factor in the decision to curtail investment. I saw the PRT running last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Certainly running trials in Januray: http://www.ultraprt.com/news/86/149/...vehicle-trips/ If it does open, it will be a personal incentive to use the business parking rather than longstay. IIRC, they plan to have staff on site for the first few weeks to keep the gawkers away. |
Airtrack shelved
On Apr 12, 8:19*am, Paul Weaver wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:16*am, ianh wrote: On Apr 12, 12:53*am, Bruce wrote: " wrote: How about thePRTat T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder, considering that it is almost two years delayed. Airtrack, like thePRT, was probably no more than a ruse to get planning permission for some major development work atHeathrow. * ThePRTwas going to revolutionise journeys to and from the Central Area - the T5 installation was just a trial. *But BAA got planning permission for the redevelopment of the Central Area, so thePRTtrial seems to have worked for BAA, even if it has never carried any of Terminal 5's Business Car Park users. Airtrack was probably intended to help BAA gain planning permission for the third runway and associated works. *Now the coalition government has made it crystal clear that the third runway project is dead and buried, there's no point in Airtrack. Of course there will be myriad other excuses why Airtrack could not go ahead, but I believe that the coalition government's refusal of the third runway is the primary cause of the cancellation. *The recent confirmation of the ruling that BAA must sell Stansted is another possible factor in the decision to curtail investment. I saw thePRTrunning last Thursday - at least 10 cars on the move (empty) Certainly running trials in Januray:http://www.ultraprt.com/news/86/149/...vehicle-trips/ If it does open, it will be a personal incentive to use the business parking rather than longstay. And it's open! http://www.ultraprt.com/news/87/85/H...-Trials-Begin/ |
Airtrack shelved
On 2011\04\20 17:32, Paul Weaver wrote:
And it's open! http://www.ultraprt.com/news/87/85/H...-Trials-Begin/ Can I use this without a plane ticket? Can I use this without a long-stay car park ticket? Where's the nearest short-stay car park and how much time would I need to park there for? Or should I park somewhere in Osterley and get the tube in? Is the PRT free? |
Airtrack shelved
In message , at 17:40:53 on
Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Basil Jet remarked: Can I use this without a plane ticket? Can I use this without a long-stay car park ticket? Don't know, and don't know. Where's the nearest short-stay car park The T5 multi-storey; that end of the pod track is actually inside it. and how much time would I need to park there for? An hour should be enough. Or should I park somewhere in Osterley and get the tube in? That'd be just as good. Is the PRT free? It might be free "if you have the right parking ticket". Also, is it operating two-way, it might be just parking-terminal to start with. -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack shelved
On Apr 20, 5:54*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:40:53 on Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Basil Jet remarked: Can I use this without a plane ticket? Can I use this without a long-stay car park ticket? ..... It might be free "if you have the right parking ticket". Also, is it operating two-way, it might be just parking-terminal to start with. It's open for a couple of weeks for real-world trials. I doubt you'll need a ticket, certainly if it's not busy, but if you're worried get the bus to the long stay, and PRT back - they're less likely to demand a ticket that way. Is there just one station in the parking? Most airport long-stays have at least half-a-dozen bus stops, I assume the ultra is the same. I'm flying from Heathrow during the public trial, but already booked my parking (£3 cheaper) at the non-business parking (slightly further, but usually faster on the bus). Very annoying. |
Airtrack shelved
Paul Weaver wrote:
On Apr 20, 5:54*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 17:40:53 on Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Basil Jet remarked: Can I use this without a plane ticket? Can I use this without a long-stay car park ticket? .... It might be free "if you have the right parking ticket". Also, is it operating two-way, it might be just parking-terminal to start with. It's open for a couple of weeks for real-world trials. I doubt you'll need a ticket, certainly if it's not busy, but if you're worried get the bus to the long stay, and PRT back - they're less likely to demand a ticket that way. Is there just one station in the parking? Most airport long-stays have at least half-a-dozen bus stops, I assume the ultra is the same. There are two PRT "stations" in the T5 Business Car Park. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk