In message
, at
12:13:04 on Sat, 8 Oct 2011, allantracy
remarked:
Why a secret, it's a pretty obvious way to increase (air) capacity at
much lower low cost/impact than a third runway at Heathrow.

It's the increased airline capacity bit they're trying their hardest
to be dishonest about.

Scrapping a third Heathrow runway and building HS2 instead was
supposed to be a way of reducing internal flights.

I don't recall the objectives being black and white like that. It'll
obviously be a bit of both

In fact, HS2 will actually allow for the additional airline capacity
the third Heathrow runway would have provided, it's just that the
third runway will now be in Birmingham.

It won't allow all the capacity of a third Heathrow runway, because
Birmingham already has quite a few flights. Ditto if they displace some
Heathrow traffic back to Gatwick (from where it's been fleeing to
Heathrow years).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 00:18:09 on Sun, 9 Oct
2011, Richard J. remarked:
How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. So how is this capacity increase achieved?

Bigger planes at Gatwick (they see this as a way to increase from
roughly 32m to 40m pax a year). And their "single runway agreement"
expires in 2019.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
02:07:31 on Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Dr. Sunil
remarked:
People also forget that even today's WCML does Birningham
Airport-Euston in 74mins, compared to 1hr by tube from Heathrow.

Or 15 mins by Heathrow Express from Paddington?

People have a choice, and lots still use the tube.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:23:29 on
Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Recliner remarked:
How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. So how is this capacity increase achieved?

Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019, but of course, even if they
started planning for it today, it wouldn't open this side of 2020.

As far as I can see, 2019 is the earliest they can start building.
Otherwise the point holds, and they'd need to rely on bigger planes to
increase the passenger throughput - which Gatwick is already expecting.

Of course, they aren't exactly breaking ground on this airport link in
the foreseeable future, and it would probably take 8-10 years to
complete.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:23:29 on
Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Recliner remarked:
How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways
are 98% fully used. Gatwick is already the world's busiest
single-runway airport. So how is this capacity increase achieved?

Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that
second runway. It's not allowed until after 2019, but of course,
even if they started planning for it today, it wouldn't open this
side of 2020.

As far as I can see, 2019 is the earliest they can start building.
Otherwise the point holds, and they'd need to rely on bigger planes to
increase the passenger throughput - which Gatwick is already
expecting.
Of course, they aren't exactly breaking ground on this airport link in
the foreseeable future, and it would probably take 8-10 years to
complete.

Yes, both the link and the airport expansion would have to be planned
together.

For example, would the new LGW runway be to the south or north of the
existing runway? Would a new terminal be needed (I assume so)? Would
the link carry both land-side and in-transit pax (in separate, secure
compartments)? If the latter, its stations would have to be closely
integrated into the terminals, with separate, segregated areas for both
types of pax. I wouldn't expect it to open until well after 2020, even
if the plans were well advanced already.

In message , at 12:25:46 on
Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Recliner remarked:
As far as I can see, 2019 is the earliest they can start building.
Otherwise the point holds, and they'd need to rely on bigger planes to
increase the passenger throughput - which Gatwick is already
expecting.
Of course, they aren't exactly breaking ground on this airport link in
the foreseeable future, and it would probably take 8-10 years to
complete.

Yes, both the link and the airport expansion would have to be planned
together.

For example, would the new LGW runway be to the south or north of the
existing runway?

Just over 1km to the South. Opening maybe 10yrs after getting PP.

Would a new terminal be needed (I assume so)?

Yes, in between the runways. But overall it doubles the area of the
airport, including some facilities east of the railway.

Would the link carry both land-side and in-transit pax (in separate,
secure compartments)?

Land-side, like Heathrow, is by far the most likely.

If the latter, its stations would have to be closely
integrated into the terminals, with separate, segregated areas for both
types of pax. I wouldn't expect it to open until well after 2020, even
if the plans were well advanced already.

--
Roland Perry

On 09/10/2011 01:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 16:25:25 +0000 (UTC), David Buttery
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:20:45 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15227879
snip

Off-topic, but I've noticed recently that this use of "mull", which has
always struck me as distinctively American headlinese, has turned up more
and more in UK publications this year. I wonder why now, rather than at
any time during the last decade or so?

It has been around for longer than the last decade, usually in the
form "mulled over". According to the SED you can blame the 'Merks -
"colloq. US 1879", maybe derived from the action of reducing something
to small pieces etc. [for the purpose of examination] ("mull" being
not 'Merkan but ultimately Teutonic via Old and Middle English).


The complete (online) OED has "mull" (to consider, ponder upon) as
American but "to mull over" is not shown as American though most of the
examples quoted are American with the earliest 1874.

An older American meaning of the verb "mull" could perhaps be very
suitable for politicians, planners etc

"To allow a problem to be resolved by inaction, to let something 'stew'
Obs". Only quoted from 1857 so perhaps the original meaning.

I had a good laugh when i first heard this suggested, but perhaps
there's another way to look at it....

The BML needs relieving with a lengthy tunnel being suggested,
dedicated services to both Heathrow and Gatwick are under threat of
being at least partially absorbed into Crossrail/Southern services,
and the cancellation of Airtrack continues to leave Heathrow without
rail access from the South.

Throwing caution to the wind, might a high capacity 'Thameslink2/
Airport Express' from Brighton/Gatwick to Stansted (or elsewhere north
of London) via a SWML interchange (Surbiton?), Heathrow and Central
London be a [slightly] more practical idea?

Chris

Or 15 mins by Heathrow Express from Paddington?

People have a choice, and lots still use the tube.


When I use Heathrow getting to the airport depends on whether I arrive
at Euston, Marylebone or Paddington.

If I use Euston then I tend to just use the Piccadilly line (Tube) all
the way whereas the other two are obviously handy for Heathrow
Express.

Of course, Crossrail should change all that.

allantracy wrote on 09 October 2011 17:36:08 ...

Or 15 mins by Heathrow Express from Paddington?

People have a choice, and lots still use the tube.


When I use Heathrow getting to the airport depends on whether I arrive
at Euston, Marylebone or Paddington.

If I use Euston then I tend to just use the Piccadilly line (Tube) all
the way whereas the other two are obviously handy for Heathrow
Express.

From Marylebone, you might gain as little as 8 minutes by using HEx
instead of Bakerloo-Piccadilly. It might be "obviously handy" for HEx,
but it's not obviously value for money.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)