[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.

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?

"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

"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

How about the PRT at T5, has that also been shelved? I wonder,
considering that it is almost two years delayed.

In article
,
(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.

Surely the level crossings aren't just an Airtrack issue? Haven't they
closed at least one crossing on the Windsor lines in the last 50 or 60
years? I have a vague recollection of Dyer's Lane closing to road traffic
when I was a child. It has a footbridge these days.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

" 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.

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)

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.

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