On Mar 24, 8:40*am, wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:57*pm, "tim....." wrote:

"TimB" wrote in message
Aha. So they're saying 'It is much cheaper to safeguard the land at
the start' [for quadrupling] rather than actually planning to build
four tracks from the start. Fair enough. And the plan is to connect
with Heathrow Express at Old Oak rather than running the HSL via
Heathrow - also sensible, I think.

In isolation this seems like a good idea, but when you add in the
possibility of linking Heathrow with HS1 so that trains can replace planes
on the London(Heathrow)-Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam/Cologne/Dusseldorf routes,
it makes no sense at all

I'm assuming that David Rowlands has been misquoted -- the money
saving is in moving the old idea of a 'Heathrow Hub' from Iver to Old
Oak. And it actually makes a good deal of sense when viewed in that
prism, because you don't need the massive investment in distributing
the passengers from Iver to the terminals (HEx/Crossrail will do that
for you). It also allows you to get out of London along the Old Oak -
Greenford - Ruislip line rather than having to carefully thread a
fifth and sixth track along the GW mainline (mostly doable but
expensive in places). Unless HS2 is run by idiots, the trains will
still go on to Euston.

And you can still get to Heathrow: if I were in charge, I'd build
Airtrack and extend HEx to Staines, then take over the platforms at T5
that were due to be Airtrack, make them 'airside' (possibly even
connected to T5's existing airside, although luggage might be an issue
there) and run regular services Heathrow - Old Oak - Stratford (via
Primrose Hill and the direct connection to HS1 at Camden Road) - Paris/
Brussels. Assuming suitable stock, you'd still have 125mph running
from Airport Junction to Old Oak, so it would be 'almost a high-speed
line'.

You are making a LOT of sense. Thanks for posting.

(Just don't expect any of this to actually happen. We are talking
about the UK DfT!)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:43:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 24, 8:40*am, wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:57*pm, "tim....." wrote:

"TimB" wrote in message
Aha. So they're saying 'It is much cheaper to safeguard the land at
the start' [for quadrupling] rather than actually planning to build
four tracks from the start. Fair enough. And the plan is to connect
with Heathrow Express at Old Oak rather than running the HSL via
Heathrow - also sensible, I think.

In isolation this seems like a good idea, but when you add in the
possibility of linking Heathrow with HS1 so that trains can replace planes
on the London(Heathrow)-Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam/Cologne/Dusseldorf routes,
it makes no sense at all

I'm assuming that David Rowlands has been misquoted -- the money
saving is in moving the old idea of a 'Heathrow Hub' from Iver to Old
Oak. And it actually makes a good deal of sense when viewed in that
prism, because you don't need the massive investment in distributing
the passengers from Iver to the terminals (HEx/Crossrail will do that
for you). It also allows you to get out of London along the Old Oak -
Greenford - Ruislip line rather than having to carefully thread a
fifth and sixth track along the GW mainline (mostly doable but
expensive in places). Unless HS2 is run by idiots, the trains will
still go on to Euston.

And you can still get to Heathrow: if I were in charge, I'd build
Airtrack and extend HEx to Staines, then take over the platforms at T5
that were due to be Airtrack, make them 'airside' (possibly even
connected to T5's existing airside, although luggage might be an issue
there) and run regular services Heathrow - Old Oak - Stratford (via
Primrose Hill and the direct connection to HS1 at Camden Road) - Paris/
Brussels. Assuming suitable stock, you'd still have 125mph running
from Airport Junction to Old Oak, so it would be 'almost a high-speed
line'.

You are making a LOT of sense. Thanks for posting.
As a traveler who has handled various transfers, I find that a station
in the airport is far more convenient and reduces the number of
connections needed by one. The second best would be to have the rail
station connected to the internal circulation system. If it makes
sense to have the TGV serve Charles de Gaulle and have an airport
station at Schipol (also Frankfurt), then having the high speed line
access Heathrow is worthy of very serious consideration.

(Just don't expect any of this to actually happen. We are talking
about the UK DfT!)

In message , at 15:50:45 on
Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Clark F Morris remarked:
If it makes sense to have the TGV serve Charles de Gaulle and have an
airport station at Schipol (also Frankfurt), then having the high speed
line access Heathrow is worthy of very serious consideration.

Although the TGV (and the RER) only service one of the three terminal
complexes at CDG. If you have the misfortune to be using the other two,
there's a significant extra leg to the journey.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:54:37 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

Although the TGV (and the RER) only service one of the three terminal
complexes at CDG. If you have the misfortune to be using the other two,
there's a significant extra leg to the journey.

Well, that depends of what terminals, and what you consider
"significant" to be. There's a VAL connection between the RER station
CDG2 and terminals 1 & 2 (A-F) which is fast and efficient. Terminal
2G is a real pain, though - there is only a bus connection to the rest
of the airport.

In message , at 00:59:48 on
Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Andrew Price remarked:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:54:37 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

Although the TGV (and the RER) only service one of the three terminal
complexes at CDG. If you have the misfortune to be using the other two,
there's a significant extra leg to the journey.

Well, that depends of what terminals, and what you consider
"significant" to be. There's a VAL connection between the RER station
CDG2 and terminals 1 & 2 (A-F) which is fast and efficient.

I timed it last June and here are my conclusions:

Landed CDG T1 17.43 twenty minutes late, but v quick to gate
long walk/travolators to main building
Bags on carousel 18.10 then short immigration Q, no customs Q
Arrived RER stn1 18.30 more travelators, shuttle-train ride from T1
RER train due 18.35 but it didn't show.
RER train depart 18.48 different platform. Non-stop Gare du Nord.
Gare du Nord arrive 19.08 stay on RER train to Denfert-Rochereau
Denfert-Rochereau 19.25 approx.

It was slightly quicker the other way:

Montparnasse stn 16.15 Metro
Depart Gare du Nord 16.47 Change to RER at Les Halles
Arrived CDG stn1 17.14 Semi-fast.
Reached checkin Q T1 17.26 Shuttle train etc

Terminal 2G is a real pain, though - there is only a bus connection
to the rest of the airport.

The 2E "satellite" is also a fair distance, with yet another shuttle
train to negotiate.
--
Roland Perry

On Mar 24, 2:50*pm, Clark F Morris wrote:
As a traveler who has handled various transfers, I find that a station
in the airport is far more convenient and reduces the number of
connections needed by one. *The second best would be to have the rail
station connected to the internal circulation system. *If it makes
sense to have the TGV serve Charles de Gaulle and have an airport
station at Schipol (also Frankfurt), then having the high speed line
access Heathrow is worthy of very serious consideration.

I agree with you. But there are a few points to make.

(1) The previous proposal incorporated a 'Heathrow Hub' station at
Iver, several miles from the airport itself. Connecting that to the
airport would have required a complex inter-terminal shuttle system
that currently does not exist.

(2) Heathrow as such is not one place -- it is currently three places
(T123, T4, T5) and may by 2020 be four (T6, adjacent to the third
runway, would be the other one). The 'internal circulation system' is
Heathrow Express and/or Heathrow Connect (which will be replaced by
Crossrail before 2020).

(3) Once you're on the internal circulation system in order to reach
'Heathrow station', then it's reasonable to ask how close 'Heathrow
station' has to be to the terminals. I'd always assumed that it would
be close by, but given that it will only take about ten minutes to get
from T123 to Old Oak, and that siting 'Heathrow station' at Old Oak
allows HS2 to be shorter, cheaper and (most importantly) faster, I
actually think it's an inspired choice. And it's not like London's the
first city to do this: west of the Pond, both JFK and Newark do the
same thing. (Newark has a dedicated 'airport station' at the end of
the inter-terminal tramway; JFK connects its to a rail interchange hub
a few miles away. And both charge premium fares for riding the
internal circulation system to the railhead.)

(4) Even with all the above, I'd hope there would be a reasonably
regular international high-speed service from Heathrow -- but you'd
need to pick one place for it to run from. T5 has a pair of spare
platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so
that's the obvious place to use.

writes:
And it's not like London's the first city to do this: west of the
Pond, both JFK and Newark do the same thing.

Note that in both of those cases, it's generally regarded as something
annoying and dysfunctional. If the airport system were fast and
convenient, no reason it couldn't work, but they inevitably seem to be
designed by idiots getting kickbacks from the taxi industry and airport
parking lobby (at least in the U.S.)...

-Miles

--
Twice, adv. Once too often.

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:08:44 UTC, schrieb auf
uk.railway :

(4) Even with all the above, I'd hope there would be a reasonably
regular international high-speed service from Heathrow -- but you'd
need to pick one place for it to run from. T5 has a pair of spare
platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so
that's the obvious place to use.

BA owns 10% not of Eurostar, but of ICRR (Intercapital and Regional
Railways), which manages the British Eurostar operations based on a
1998 contract with Eurostar (UK) Ltd, a contract with expires in 2010,
i.e. next year. And BA is a "silent" partner, i.e. does not take part
in the day to day steering of ICRR's activities. ICRR in turn is, if I
am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which
is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an
international operation.


Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------

On 25 Mar, 09:15, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:08:44 UTC, *schrieb *auf
uk.railway :

(4) Even with all the above, I'd hope there would be a reasonably
regular international high-speed service from Heathrow -- but you'd
need to pick one place for it to run from. T5 has a pair of spare
platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so
that's the obvious place to use.

* BA owns 10% not of Eurostar, but of ICRR (Intercapital and Regional
Railways), which manages the British Eurostar operations based on a
1998 contract with Eurostar (UK) Ltd, a contract with expires in 2010,
i.e. next year. And BA is a "silent" partner, i.e. does not take part
in the day to day steering of ICRR's activities. ICRR in turn is, if I
am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which
is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an
international operation.


You are mistaken - Eurostar Group is the "unified management
structure" that was created in 1999 by the three Eurostar partners -
SNCF, LCR, and SNCB/NMBS. Eurostar Group Ltd is merely the legal
identity of this structure.

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:50:23 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
auf uk.railway :

RR in turn is, if I
am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which
is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an
international operation.

You are mistaken - Eurostar Group is the "unified management
structure" that was created in 1999 by the three Eurostar partners -
SNCF, LCR, and SNCB/NMBS. Eurostar Group Ltd is merely the legal
identity of this structure.

Are you sure, that neither EUKL nor ICRR are partner of Eurostar
Group Ltd? Do you have sources for this?

And if, if neither the owner of the British Eurostar trainsets
(EUKL) nor the company which is the railway undertaking running those
trains on British soil (ICRR) are partners in Eurostar Group Ltd, on
what contractual basis can Eurostar Group Ltd interfere in the
business of EUKL and ICRR?


Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------