The Airtrack Lite fantastic, tripped up?

We tend to talk a lot about Heathrow airport. This comes as no great surprise since a question like the addition of a third runway(R3) provokes so many passions. However, Britain´s principal airport, with over 70 million passengers passing through it annually, has other projects going on at the moment and others are constantly being proposed or floated.

Airtack-Lite is one new(?) such project. Its newness is questioned because it is basically very similar to BAA´s previous Airtrack proposal. That this blog dealt with nearly two years ago, 30 June 2010  "Airtrack - is it worthwhile?"

The basic idea was to run trains from T5 at Heathrow over Staines Moor to Staines. From there trains would run at the rate of two per hour to Waterloo, Guildford and Reading, and also with some Heathrow Express(HE) trains from Paddington running through T5 to Staines. All this was to be financed, built and run by BAA. The project fell down on two main points (a) the lack of train paths to fit more trains on to the three aforementioned routes and (b) the plethora of level crossings along the routes which would have made the road network near and crossing the routes clogged because of extra closures.This proposal was officially withdrawn as unworkable and reported 11 April 2011 in Rail.Co."Heathrow: ‘No option but to withdraw proposed Airtrack link to Staines".


Then, of all groupings, Wandsworth Council came up with their version of the same called Airtrack-Lite.The article in Rail.Co, dated 28 October 2011, "Wandsworth Council proposes new ‘Airtrack-Lite’ plan to connect Heathrow"  only mentions stops at Clapham Junction and Putney. However, the map, as published by Wandsworth Council, illustrates all the stops along the line until Staines. So would it be a stopping service or an express service?

Just as a note for clarity (a) the line Waterloo-Richmond-Staines has 5 level-crossings as illustrated on this diagram, while (b) the line Waterloo-Hounslow-Staines has 4 level crossings (there is an additional one - unmarked on this diagram - between Chiswick and Kew Bridge stations)

As the diagram tries to explain the service proposed does not mean any increase in the number of services into Waterloo from Heathrow T5 and Staines High Street. However, the service frequency is increased from 2tph (in the original Airtrack proposal) to 4tph in this Airtrack-Lite proposal. This, without doubt, means a more attractive, and thus more viable, offer to the travelling and working public.  

But how is this to be obtained? Apparently, two Waterloo-Windsor services(per hour) would be be split at Staines with half the train continuing to Windsor while the other half would run into T5.This would entail a short stopover at Staines to connect or disconnect the two halves as is the case.The stopover would have to be longer than a normal train stop (which usually need be no more than 60-90 seconds). This would mean a danger of delays. This is certainly a risky maneuver on a busy commuter line especially in the rush hours. These two services would be those that run through Richmond (to connect to the LUL District Line and London Overground) and Twickenham (to connect to the Teddington(thus Shepperton) - Kingston line). The opportunity for travellers and workers south of the Thames to connect to Heathrow would, therefore, be greatly increased. The question that needs to be asked here is: Will the trains maintain their present stopping pattern or will fewer stops be permitted? In that case, which stops would be withdrawn?

The other 2tph would run through the Hounslow loop (apparently non-stop from Putney to T5). There is no mention of the origin of these train paths so they seem to be new ones. That might be possible during the main part of the day but during the morning and evening rush hours there is a notorious lack of train paths - the whole timetable being fine-tuned and liable to knock-on effects on all the services (on the Windsor, Reading and Teddington lines) for any minor delays. 

London Mayor, Boris Johnson, accepted the proposal  ("Mayor gives cautious backing to Waterloo - Heathrow rail link", "London SE1 Community website"1-12-11),together with the two other councils of Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham ("Waterloo-Heathrow rail link wins backing from two more boroughs", "London SE1 Community website" 15-05-12), while Rail.Co. (15-05-12) goes on to mention the additional stops at Queenstown Road and Wandsworth,which had not been mentioned before.

What has not been mentioned before are the services from the South Coast(Portsmouth)-Woking-Weybridge-Heathrow. This connection would offer a more direct route from Hampshire and the south to Heathrow though only at a frequency of 2tph. This is not really an attractive frequency to offer people so that they transfer from the car to the train to reach the airport - it has limited benefit.

It must be said that Wandsworth Council has tried to maintain the original Airtrack idea in a reduced form (there would be no through service from Heathrow to Reading), while, apparently, not aggravating the problems of train paths and level-crossing closures. This is a valient attempt but no more than that. Of course, to satisfy their own voters they introduce stops in the borough of Wandsworth but that is only a sop to them. 

The idea of a direct service from Waterloo to Heathrow is basically good but runs up against the problem of the level-crossings, be them in the Hounslow loop or in the Richmond branch. The construction of bridges or tunnels along the line at the level crossings is a problem which will have to be attacked at some time in the future. After all this is the main line route to Windsor and Reading with a lot of commuter traffic, and if the traffic is expected to rise up to 50% in the next twenty years this is a problem which cannot be brushed under the carpet.

However, those reasons are not enough to justify the scheme. This blogger sticks by the proposals made in two blogs written 23 February 2010("Fast Trax 2 - The case for a southern high speed alternative (SHSL)") and 15th May 2012 ("Who wants the Irish...?").These support the idea of a high speed line from Reading through Heathrow (T5 - T2/T3 - T4) to Gatwick and then Ashford. If this line were built then it opens the opportunity of running services from Waterloo-Feltham-T4-T3/T2-T5 and even on to Reading. The only part of the new SHSL that this Waterloo connection would use is that between Feltham and T5 (or even on to Reading) but the important advantage it has is that it would connect the four airport terminals - something which neither Airtrack nor Airtrack-Lite do.This encounters certain technical problems but they are solvable. The offer is much better than Airtrack or Airtrack-Lite but runs up against the problems of the level-crossings again. Maybe it would prove the catalyst to get the tunnels and/or bridges built on the lines through Richmond and Hounslow.

Heathrow Chapuzas!!

Maybe you do not understand this Spanish word but at least one person who will is the Rt.Hon.Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Glegg.  This generally is used to refer to the actions taken, or to be taken, to fix a problem which is not a good solid everlasting solution but more of a "quick fix", a"half way house", a "temporary solution(which turns out to be permanent, or semi-permanent)". One thing that is implicit is that it is derogatory without doubt. No other word can express with such disdain work which is carried out in ways which are shoddy, badly thought out, and badly executed.

The infrastructures committed by the British governments over the last fifty years can, in many cases, be called "chapuzas". More specifically, those transport connections in and into Heathrow airport in search of solutions to problems have not solved the problems only in part but also badly. The ideas presently being floated for more solutions at Heathrow are being looked at piecemeal with the high likelihood of them being patches which do not give us good long lasting solutions. In other words we are being offered "chapuzas" yet again by these civil servants and politicians (these "chapuzeros"). 

Let us firstly look at the development of Heathrow.

(c) George Hayter

This was the layout of the airport when it was taken over from the RAF in 1946. The three runway triangular plan was typical of RAF aerodromes of the time.

(c) George Hayter

The report by the London Airport Advisory Layout Panel for development at Heathrow was presented in January 1947. As can be seen from the diagram up to 10 runways were envisaged using not only the existing area of the aerodrome but also an extended area to the north of the Bath Road (A4) which was to be diverted as shown.

This configuration provided three sets of parallel runways so minimise the effects of crosswinds.

After the extensions south of the A4 to be completed by 1949, the third stage north of the A4 was to be completed by 1953. The reason this stage was placed last was that it meant the knocking down of the village of Sipson. This was considered inappropriate in the immediate post war years due to the severe shortage of housing. Need it be said that Sipson is still there.

This was an opportunity lost since the development round the airport in 1953 was much less than at present. That third parallel east-west runway (Nº 8) would have approximately occupied the site of the 21st century proposed third Heathrow runway thus providing the airport(in 1953) with the expansion and flexibility it seeks now sixty years later. As a result of complying with that proposal other infrastructure planning would certainly have taken a different course. That blundering failure is an illustration of short-termism and political expediency - no vision.The idea was finally abandoned in December 1952.

As George Hayter says in his book, "...the recommendations of the Layout Panel contained few ideas which had not been well aired. 
Nevertheless, the Panel chose the most bold and exciting of all the possibilities." 
Suffice it to say that, apart from the above mentioned, they envisaged the central area, where the terminal(s) were to be situated, to be reached by a four lane tunnel under the north runway. This was built in 1950-53 and considered revolutionary at the time.

(c) George Hayter

This was the layout of the airport when it came into use in April 1955. It was later opened officially by the Queen on 16th December 1955.
Take note of the extended maintenance area to the east. This is where BA maintenance facilities are now situated. The Pan Am maintenance facilities are now occupied by Terminal 4.
Also the development along the A4, just north of runway 1, is very marked in the nine years from 1946.

In the central area was the Europa building which handled domestic, European and North African flights.The overseas terminal was still on the A4 and not in the Central Area. Long-haul flights had to wait until November 1961(BOAC) and March 1962(other carriers) to move to the Oceanic building in the central area.

By the mid sixties traffic had grown so that a new terminal was deemed necessary. This was opened in 1968 for all British, Irish and Channel Isles flights of BEA and Aer Lingus. The Official opening by the Queen was in April 1969 and it was named Terminal 1. She also renamed the Europa Terminal 2 and the Oceanic Terminal 3. Heathrow at this stage was handling 14 million passengers annually.

It was at this time that better transport links to central London were considered essential.

A lot of the information(the italics are quotations) in this blog is gleaned from George Hayter´s book "Heathrow - the story of the world´s greatest international airport." (Pan Books 1989)


1- Feltham to central area 

"Since the 1940s, British Rail have had plans to link Heathrow to their national network. The favoured scheme always used to be one connecting the airport to the Feltham line, which passes to the south of the airport and runs into the central London termini of Waterloo and Victoria."
It just goes to show that the planners then did not have the materials (post-war rationing) nor the money (bankruptcy of the country because of the war) but they certainly had vision.

The idea of a rail link into Heathrow came up again at the end of the 1960s. The idea mooted was a connection from Feltham Station direct to the central area, as illustrated.

There were two main problems to be considered........
(i) Lack of train paths: From Feltham station trains could go through either Twickenham or through Hounslow to where the tracks met at Barnes then to Clapham Junction and on to Waterloo or Victoria. The Victoria solution was preferred but rejected as it implied major crossover works at Clapham Junction so Waterloo was accepted as the terminus. However, these trains ran along the Windsor and Reading lines which had heavy traffic and lack of platform availability in Waterloo. Also the service level would have to be reduced during the morning and evening rush periods into/out of Waterloo. This would occur just when the same rush periods demanded nor less but more service to/from Heathrow.
(ii)Level crossings:Including one at Feltham itself, there were six level crossings along the Twickenham route while five along the Hounslow route. This would have meant closing the level crossings to road traffic for longer periods still, increasing road congestion. The cost of building the necessary bridges or tunnels for the road traffic was seen as excessive and unacceptable. Thus an opportunity was lost to solve a problem which exists even today and will have to be confronted at some time in the future.

These two reasons were paramount in causing the cancellation of the Airtrack project in 2011.

Thus the door was opened for London Transport to extend the Piccadilly line from Hounslow West to the central area.


2-Piccadilly line extension to central area

Work began in April 1971 on construction of the Piccadilly Line extension from Hounslow West to Heathrow Central (5.6 kms.).
Hatton Cross (for the maintenance area in the east of the airport) opened 19th July 1975.
The Heathrow Central extension was finally opened 16th December 1977. That year 24 million passengers passed through the airport.
The solution was considered acceptable at the time but all the interested bodies realised that other solutions had to be looked at.

3-Piccadilly line loop to T4

(c) George Hay

By the early 1980s passenger figures passed 30 million so a new terminal was built at the south east of the airport. This was opened officially 1st April 1986 by the Prince and Princess of Wales but came into operation, in fact, 12th April.

The single line loop from Hatton Cross to Terminal 4 round to Heathrow Central was opened with only one platform in T4 and is unidirectional.
This so far has proved adequate but leaves the loop with no flexibility in case of accidents and breakdowns.

The expansion to the south east of the airfield was BAA´s second choice.Firstly, they wanted to expand eastwards but this would have meant closing runway 2 which was "considered vital for crosswinds and emergencies." 

The rebuilding of Terminal 2 now taking place (spring 2012) is occupying that same runway 2 together with the satellite Terminal 2B. This means that another runway is being taken out with no backup replacement.

"When London Transport extended the Piccadilly Line to serve Terminal 4, they built the loop line further west than it apparently needed to go. So far west, in fact, that it almost passes beneath the sewage works, making possible the later insertion of a tube station here to serve a fifth terminal."
George Hayter wrote those words in 1989, three years before BAA announced their proposal for T5 in May 1992. Unfortunately, George was proved wrong.........as a different extension was built from the central area to T5. This is another example of sloppy planning and maybe for one or various different reasons such as.......

(i) London Transport did not talk to the right people to know their long-term intentions and so ended up with a shorter loop than was subsequently needed.
(ii) BAA  apparently did not take into consideration London Transport´s loop so built the terminal station (and T5) further west than could have been done.
(iii) No remedial construction work was considered feasible in place of a simple extension from Heathrow Central. The result means that London Transport ends up with an excess of unnecessary railtrack while T4 and T5 are unconnected directly - and such is the inconvenient situation today.



4- Heathrow Express to central area and T4

(c) National Rail May 2001

Even with the Underground extension to T4 plans were afoot for a connection from T4 to the Great Western Main Line(GWML) approved in 1988. This non-stop rail service  from Paddington mainline station to Heathrow T4 was opened in its full extension 23rd June 1998. The capital cost of GBP190 million was covered 80% by BAA and 20% by British Rail. Thus Heathrow Express(HE) is both operated by BAA and owned by them from the  GWML to the airport. However, it is (now) maintained by Network Rail for BAA.




As can be seen on the Google Earth map HE comes round in a sweeping curve from the central area to T4 ending up facing northeast. It does not give us the line of the track to T5, however.

This makes one think that nobody has thought nor considered it worthwhile leaving the options open by any extension from T4 which might be useful or beneficial, such as an extension to Feltham. Now any such connection would need another sweeping "S" double curve to connect the service to the Windsor/Reading main line.

Heathrow Connect (HC)(a joint venture between BAA and First Great Western) started 12th June 2005, running originally from Paddington to T4. This is a stopping service from Paddington along the GWML and then ran, originally, into Heathrow Central and T4. Now it runs only to Heathrow Central. From there anybody who wants to travel to (or from) T4 has to connect to an HE shuttle service.

The problem seems to reside in  the connection at Airport Junction between the HE line and the GWML. The frequency of trains is restricted which is why HE has 4 trains per hour(tph) running into T5 while HC only offers 2tph. The original connection at Airport Junction, Stockley Flyover, has a complicated system of operation.The original flyover connected the HE line to the fast lines on the GWML. With the introduction of HC services these used the GWML slow lines. This meant a combination of reverse running over the flyover and crossing the fast lines in the other direction(this is a total line capacity reducing measure). Yet another example of lack of forward planning (and/or cost cutting).

It seems that this problem should be solved (at additional expense, of course) with the introduction of Crossrail services in 2019 which will take over the HC services. These will run from Heathrow, probably T4, to the central area, through to Paddington then central London and out east at 4tph(double the HC frequency).

The Underground Piccadilly line services stop at T4 and wait up to 8 minutes before returning through the central area to central London. The frequency is approximately every ten minutes (i.e.6tph).

5-Heathrow Express to T5

6-Piccadilly line to T5

A new terminal for its own use was pushed by BA. The site chosen was the sewage farm between the north and south runways to the west of the airport. From conception to opening 19 years were needed, including the longest public enquiry on record at 525 days. Construction began in September 2002 and that year 63.3 million passengers used the airport.

(c) Transport for London March 2009

T5 was opened by the Queen on 14th March but officially came into operation 27th March 2008. Over 67 million passengers went through the airport that year. On the opening of T5 the HE trains started running into that station.

The original Piccadilly line loop round from T4 to the supposed T5 site and on to the central area was not sufficient, as has already been mentioned. As shown on the diagram the area was greater than that envisaged on the loop diagram.That meant that an extension of the original Underground connection from Hounslow West to Heathrow Central was now extended to T5. The service pattern set up was that some 6tph tube trains entered Heathrow at Hatton Cross and went south to rest at T4, then continued on the return journey through the central area back to central London. Another 6tph entered from Hatton Cross into the central area and on to T5. These then returned the way they had come.

(c) National Rail & Transport for London 2012

The map on the left shows the
system as it is today. LUT´s Piccadilly line runs to T4 and T5. HE is shown as running to T5 and HC is shown, erroneously, as running to T4, in both cases from Paddington. It should be emphasised that from Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3 to T4 a free HE shuttle is now taken.
The station in the central area has been known as Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3 since April 1986. However, it still retains that name despite Terminal 2 being knocked down in 2009. When T2 is reopened in 2014  T1 will be knocked down. Therefore, there is some confusion about what the name of the station will be. It is speculated that it will be renamed Heathrow Central. Probably, it is just as well that the name is not changed until the new T2 is reopened to avoid confusion.

7-Airtrack to Staines
When T5 was constructed it was provided with platforms for the Piccadilly line trains, the HE trains and two more, unspecified use. For once somebody had thought ahead.


An idea called Airtrack was promoted by BAA using these two platforms in the new T5 building. Three services were to be offered; Reading, Guildford and Waterloo. Each was to have a frequency of 2tph offpeak and 1tph peak periods.

The problems involved have already been looked at in point 1 with the Feltham connection. Basically, these were (i) lack of train paths (thus the reduction in peak periods) and (ii) level crossings (extending the services to Reading and Guildford meant additional level crossing closures during the operation of the trains  meaning additional traffic problems.

BAA also wanted to extend some HE trains from T5 to Staines (solely to increase traffic on its services). This would have complicated things more with an extra turnback platform to be built at Staines. As it turned out, a combination of the difficult problems encountered together with the government´s drastic cut in investments and spending, convinced BAA to drop the scheme in April 2011.

This blogger looked at the question 30th June 2010 in an article titled "Airtrack - is it worthwhile?"

8-Reading to Heathrow Rail Connection
The Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond  came up with this idea in  September 2011. It was floated as a shuttle between T5 and Reading to connect to the GWML and services to South Wales, Bristol and the west country. After the initial news nothing else has been heard.

This blogger looked at the proposal under the title "Reading - Heathrow Rail Connection" 6th October 2011, fairly soon after it came out.

Without repeating the arguments extensively, the idea of connecting the two free platforms at T5 with the GWML is a good one. However, if it stops at that then it is short thinking. The bigger picture should be looked at in which the Reading - T5 connection is only a part. If that is not done then we would fall into the trap, yet again, of thinking small and developing projects which are costly to rectify in the long run.

This particular project should be looked at with and linked to the Heathrow-Gatwick proposal.

9-Heathrow to Gatwick
This is a proposal to link(with the horrible name of "Heathwick") the two airports so that the two Gatwick terminals would function as extra terminals for Heathrow. Obviously, this had not been thought through. The idea of linking the two airports is welcome but not in the terms as mentioned.  


The broader picture has to be looked at again which this blogger did on 11th October 2011, "Heathrow - Gatwick Rail Link".

Here the proponents of the connection are thinking of, yet again, using the two free platforms at T5 to provide this link. Maybe at present they have the capacity to satisfy both(8 & 9) connections but if the services are successful then they will be proven lacking. That would mean, yet again, having to rectify short-term thinking with new constructions.

The two projects joined together (Reading - LHR and LHR - Gatwick) offer greater possibilities. If then the line were extended to Ashford(Kent) we then have a connection to the Chunnel. That then would open up the possibilities of connections to Europe(Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Cologne and even Frankfurt).
All this would provide traffic from the two airports (at least, and maybe even Luton), and from Reading (and all points north, west and south west from there). Direct trains are a possibility to mainland Europe bypassing the bottleneck that is London. It would mean that no spur from HS2 is necessary, alleviating the traffic through the capital. The possibilities of direct trains to mainland Europe from Wales, the South West and Birmingham are opened up while greater and better regional services are also a possibility.

These ideas have to thought through on a broader scale, and then planned and executed carefully.


10-mainline station Heathrow
On 16th may 2008 the infrastructure engineering group ARUP presented a plan to improve rail services between Heathrow and the rest of the country. It is also mentioned in a  Wikipedia article, Heathrow Hub railway station. 

This was to be situated north of the airport on the GWML connected by a shuttle service to T5. Here again they were thinking of using the free platforms at T5. However, this idea of a 12 platform station fell flat on its face because it yet again introduced a time wasting change for connections to the GWML and HS2. 

Duplicity of effort,  waste of resources, eating up of the Green Belt; there were many reasons to criticise this project. However, again the germ of the idea was not bad - if done at Heathrow. The basic objections were that it used the supposedly free platforms at T5, it did not take into consideration any other project proposed, and it was imprisoned in the concepts already put forward by the same engineering group to solve problems (HS2 etc.). 

Maybe the present infrastructure in Heathrow is non-adaptable to greater ideas or concepts. That is a question of looking at the present infrastructure with the plans to see if it can be adapted; also the traffic predictions have to be realistic and reflect the experience gained over the last fifty years. then we can consider if the present infrastructure can be adapted and used or if a new "heavy" rail station should be built to connect Heathrow to Gatwick and mainline Europe, and other parts of the country as well.

This we will look at in the next blog. 

What has to be looked at, firstly, is what the country wants to do with Heathrow. If it is closed then what substitutes it? Thus a strategic plan for aviation would have to be drawn up and implemented quickly. If the decision is taken to keep Heathrow for, at least, the next forty to fifty years then total plans have to be laid down and implemented as soon as possible. 

Then the mistakes of the past have to be taken into consideration, learned from, and avoided. Complete solutions to plans for national, regional and local transport needs have to be tackled. This would mean that Heathrow, or any other airport for that matter, would not be looked at in isolation but as part of a whole. If plans prove to be reasonable and feasible then let them go ahead  and not fall victim to narrowly interested parties or Treasury diktats. The greater good for the long-term should be paramount. That is the only way to avoid the mistakes of the past.


Note: Passenger figures reached a high of 68,068,304 in 2007. In the period 2008-2010 figures fell in the economic downturn. Now in 2011 the figures have recovered their upward climb and surpassed the previous high at 69,433,565.

How to turn to our advantage the five present London airports.

Whether you consider the building of a new airport in the Thames estuary a folly or not does not answer the question about how the existing London airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City would function. If an Estuary airport were ever built these airports will not close - or at most City will have to close (together with Southend) as mentioned in the previous blog of 31/12/11. The need for new runways in the South East is apparent and will remain so whether or not a new airport is built. In fact the call for new runways is ceaseless as illustrated in this article in ABTN (10 January 2012). Therefore, what is needed is to use the assets we have.

London has a large number of airports in comparison to other cities or countries. Amsterdam has Schiphol while the others of note are Rotterdam and Eindhoven. Paris has Charles-de-Gaulle but still uses Orly while Beauvais is some distance away from Paris. New York has JFK and La Guardia together with Newark in New Jersey. Tokyo has Haneda and Narita.  New York and Tokyo together with London are known as the three busiest airport systems in the world with over 100 million passengers per annum. The list goes on but none has as many airports as London (to our knowledge). This, however, can be to our advantage - five airports instead of one massive one.

Why so many?
The role of each of the five airports is different. This is important to note as they are used both as international airports as well as local regional airports..

Heathrow is the International hub for London and Great Britain because it has grown into that role. Everybody (the airlines) wants to fly into it. It had the most international connections of any airport in the world so any connecting passengers wanted to fly into Heathrow. Now, because Heathrow is effectively full, that is not so true since Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam have caught up. The others now offer more international connections - but not necessarily with as many seats (per week) on offer. But even that could change.Traffic (2010 in each case) 65.9 million passengers per annum (ppa)(thanks to the UK Civil Aviation Authority - CAA).


City is the businessman´s airport. Principally for people working in the City of London financial district together with Docklands this airport is the most convenient for the most important domestic and European business destinations as well as some leisure(snow and sand) destinations. It also offers two flights daily to New York JFK(except Saturdays). Traffic 2.8 million ppa.


Gatwick was the original airport for charter flights but its role has changed and is still changing. There are still a lot of charter flights and holiday flights in general. Both British Airways and Virgin Atlantic use the airport for their leisure destinations. However, now the new owners are trying to attract more airlines to longer distance destinations such as Vietnam(Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh), China(Hong Kong and Beijing) and Korea. This is part of a strategy to increase the offers for businessmen. The biggest operator at the airport, Easyjet, has many business destinations not just leisure ones. Other big "low cost carrier" airlines are Ryanair and Norwegian.  Traffic 31.4 million ppa.


Stansted also has Easyjet as a large operator at the airport. The Irish airline Ryanair has its largest London base at the airport while other "low cost carrier" (LCC )airlines use it. It serves Europe, some of North Africa and the Canary Islands. Traffic 18.6 million ppa.

Luton is the smallest of the airports but also deals with several LCC airlines including Easyjet (it has its headquarters here), Ryanair, and Wizz. Traffic 8.7 million ppa.

That makes for a grand total of 127.35 million passengers to/from the London airports in 2010. This is down 9% from 2007 when numbers peaked at 139.95 million  LHR 68 million ppa.  LCY 2.9 million ppa.  LGW 35.2 million ppa.  STN  23.8 million ppa.  LTN 9.9 million ppa.


Here it can be seen that BA(as well as from LCY) and Virgin Atlantic operate into/from two large airports while Easyjet and Ryanair operate into /from the three largest airports excluding Heathrow. In fact Easyjet has just made Southend a base to add to its capacity in the South East.The reason for this is that they consider these airports as local as well as being London airports.The catchment area is well within the reach of their customers. Such is the case that EL AL (the Israeli airline) flies from Luton as well as from Heathrow so that it can catch its clientele from north London. Other big operators at the airports are Thomson, Monarch and Thomas Cook.
 
But what about present capacity?
BAA reported on 12th January 2012 that Heathrow in 2011 operated at 99.2%  of its 480,000 annual flight movements given capacity. If its movements` limitations were modified it could accomodate more flights but not too many. The solution at present is to increase the size of aircraft used so each would carry more passengers. This would not be to the satisfaction of the residents under the flight paths.  

CTY is limited by agreements over movements at the weekends so that residents are not disturbed on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. Its estimated capacity is 5 million ppa. but this depends on aircraft movements.


LGW from a one runway airport is estimated to be operating at 95% capacity. STN is permitted to operate at 264.000 flights per annum and is estimated to have a capacity of 35 million ppa. but is close to capacity at the busiest times  - early and mid morning with late afternoon. LTN has an estimated capacity of 10 million ppa. but this could be increased with better facilities.


This data is thanks to the document prepared by the Greater London Authority "A New Airport For London" January 2011
  
What is the answer?
Obviously the assets must be sweated but that is only a short term solution and the airport slots  are not necessarily available at the times needed. 


This blogger has proposed freeing up the airports from limitations to decide if they want to increase the numbers of runways or not.That way Heathrow could have three runways while Gatwick, Stansted and Luton would have to argue their cases to provide a second (or more) runway according to needs and market demands - paid for by the interested parties and not the taxpayer.That would increase capacity greatly, even doubling the present capacity, more than enough to satisfy demand through the 21st Century.


The key is CONNECTIVITY.
The London airports have been badly served by public transport for a long time. Gatwick was the first to have a direct connection to London Victoria  rail station but it took Heathrow until December 1977 till it got its UNDERGROUND connection. Now we have the Heathrow Express non-stop into Paddington. Stansted has the Stansted Express into the airport from Liverpool Street station. Luton has rail services from St. Pancras to Luton Airport Parkway(from where a bus connection is needed to the airport) while City airport is served by DLR services to a adjacent station.


However, the thoughts have always focused on connections to Central London. The error of this is shown to be blatant whenever somebody wishes to travel anywhere else than Central London.


There are still (frequent) bus services from Heathrow to Reading, Guildford and Gatwick. Airtrack was proposed to connect Terminal 5 with Reading, Guildford and Waterloo with dedicated rail services but was later dropped. Now two ideas have emerged to connect Heathrow  T5 with Reading (via the GWML) and Gatwick (a new fast line) called Heathwick (an awful name) Neither is connected to the other, they are badly thought out but at least they are a step in the right direction.


The Gatwick Express now starts ( at least for rush hour journeys) from Brighton so also serves the south coast area. Now and in the future there will be ever more Thameslink services from the south coast through Gatwick and Central London to Luton and Bedford (as well as elsewhere). There are no plans to alter the rail services to Stansted airport.


Crossrail will be a new line through Central London (West to East). One branch will enter Heathrow to replace the Heathrow Connect services which will continue out to City airport and on to Abbey Wood.


The problem is that the services on offer and planned are no way sufficient to take advantage of the airports and the potential they hold. You have to be able to connect from one airport to another while being able to connect to other lines, meaning sources of custom. All this would facilitate usage of the transport systems while not clogging up the centre of London.Let us look at what can be done to connect the airports better.


With Crossrail City airport will be connected to Central London with fast services and out to Paddington and Heathrow. A one stop change at Farringdon will enable connections to Thameslink services to  Luton and Gatwick airports, and onwards. What is needed (already taken into consideration but not affected) is the extension from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet. That way Eurostar European services can be connected to as well as Southeastern´s fast services to the Kent coast.


As already said the Gatwick Express runs from Brighton through Gatwick to Victoria. Thameslink services run from Brighton through Gatwick to London Bridge, St.Pancras (Eurostar) /Kings Cross(ECML) and on to Luton and Bedford. Here if a connection were built from Luton Parkway through the airport to Stevenage, then a service could run along the MML from St.Pancras to Luton Parkway and Luton airport(with a stop at West Hampstead to connect to the Underground system) and return along the ECML to Stevenage and Kings Cross(stopping at Finsbury Park for the Underground) (and vice versa). Connectivity outside London is then served better. The point of departure could be the said London termini but also even further south (Gatwick or Brighton)


The best possibilities for improvement are on the Heathrow, Central London  Stansted axis. At the moment the Heathrow Express is owned and run by BAA. It goes from T5 to the Central Area (T1 and T3) at Heathrow and on to Paddington non-stop. If a third runway were built then a new station could be built(without any problem and little disruption) at Terminal 6 (to serve the third runway) on the way to Paddington.
The Stansted Express forms part of the East Anglia franchise running from the airport to Liverpool St. station with a stop at Tottenham Hale to connect to the Underground system.
To combine the two services to make it a Heathrow - Stansted Express is totally logical as each runs 4 services per hour.
The problems lies in the fact that there are three companies involved, BAA, National Express East Anglia and Crossrail.  However, that should not be an insuperable obstacle if the three are flexible and the government is prepared to bang some heads together when necessary. If the H- S Express were set up then the running pattern could be the same from Heathrow to Paddington(non-stop), then picking up /setting down passengers in Central London, connecting to Thameslink (for Gatwick and Luton) at Farringdon then on to Liverpool St., out to Stratford (for Eurostar and Underground) and non-stop to Stansted. (of course all the central London stops connect with the Underground). This would then be a truely connecting service from end to end with everything in between.


It does not stop there, however. As already mentioned ideas have been floated about a connection to the GWML and on to Reading from Heathrow. A seperate idea was a new fast line from Heathrow to Gatwick. The bad thing was the ideas were not thought through. Both ideas are good in isolation but extremely better if combined. 
This blogger´s thoughts on these ideas were expounded in two bloggs in October 2011. 
"Reading - Heathrow Rail Connection" 6 October  and
"Heathrow - Gatwick Rail link" 11 October  as well as previously
 "Luton - the Next Best Bet?" 5 July 2010  and  
"Fast Trax 2 - The case for a southern high speed alternative (SHSL)" 24 February 2010 

The important thing to remember is that direct services can be offered from the airports (a)if there are excellent connections to the rail network  and (b)if there is demand . It should be said that road connections are not  considered since there is excessive road traffic on the roads and the emphasis should be on transfering traffic on to public transport.

The rail connections to public transport must be  (a) to the final destination of London (b) to other transport interchanges to facilitate easy movement to the outskirts of the capital without clogging Central London,(c) to other destinations outside the capital which can be through connections or direct services, and (d) the ability to interchange from one airport(easily, and quickly) to another to facilitate the needs of transfer passengers. A one stop or one change system of rail transport can make London´s airport system much more attractive to domestic and foreign passengers alike. This would then mean greater usage of the system(each airport having two runways or more according to demand).

The demand for such connections is of supreme importance to make them viable alternatives. It should be remembered that as stated in the report from HSR2 Ltd..(High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond HS2) Demand Model Analysis. "Our model suggests a station at Heathrow would deliver the greatest demand for access to Heathrow, with around 2,000 passengers per day using HS2 to access the airport for international flights. This means that even a station at Heathrow which is deliberately modelled to maximise the attractiveness for airport passengers would represent less than 2% of the traffic on HS2". This report was to the Department for Transport. Both under the Labour government and later with the coalition government the reports were that any HS2 spur to Heathrow was not justified by numbers. However, this changes when the connectivity is amplified to include more than one airport, or simplify connections to the rail system. But any connection does not necessarily mean to HS2 as we have stated earlier.

Is it not more attractive to have train services (a)Eurostar from Heathrow , through Gatwick and Ashford to Brussels and Amsterdam or Cologne, or to Lille and Paris (b) Cross Country trains from Gatwick, through Heathrow to Reading and then westwards to Wales or northwards to Birmingham? Would these services not dampen down demand for domestic and near-Europe air services? After all that is the objective of the "Green" lobby. In the end you have to spend in order to save.

Use the airports. Expand them which would far less disruptive than other plans. Think of them as local as well as national assets. Make them work together by connecting them.
GBP50 billion can go a lot much further in improving the infrastructure for a greater number of people over greater areas of the country, than just a"white elephant" standing in the mists of the Thames Estuary buzzed and bespotted by seagulls and wild geese. 

Reading - Heathrow Rail Connection

The original idea was called Airtrack. This was a BAA promotion(just like Heathrow Express(HE)) of rail connections from Heathrow Terminal 5 (where space has already been reserved for extra rail tracks/platforms) via Staines to Waterloo, Guilford and Reading. This idea TRANS-TRAX analysed on 30th June 2010 in a posting on this blog called Airtrack - is it worthwhile?.

There were some good elements but we thought that the idea was flawed. Certain elements proved to be insurmountable obstacles - such as the extended closure of level crossings on the Staines - Reading section, and the lack of train paths to fit the trains into the heavily scheduled services on the South West network. The result was that BAA cancelled the project in April 20011.

What has been little mentioned is the fact that the whole project was an idea of, and to be financed by BAA (the owners of Heathrow). The expense of running sets of dual system trains (to operate with overhead electrical supply, and then on the South West Train Network with a third rail trackside connection) also proved to be onerous with limited benefit (lack of train paths) and possibilities to increase frequencies. The focus, anyway, was on benefit to BAA, not service to the passengers. So the project died its death.

However, a partial solution is being worked on. On 5th September 2011 an article appeared on the BBC website titled "Hammond Heathrow £500m rail link plan consideration" 
This is being sold as direct trains from Cardiff and Bristol into Heathrow. There will not be that many per day so would not make such a direct connection viable. The article was echoed on 11th September, in a more realistic vein by the Reading Chronicle, titled "Airport rail link hopes run high" Here the focus in the article is on the 4 train per hour shuttle between Reading and Heathrow Terminal 5. This is much more realistic. It would replace the coach shuttle between the two cutting travel time to under 30 minutes. It thus offers a direct connection at Reading from all points west to Heathrow, opening the possibility of direct trains from the West (and South Wales into the airport). The shuttle would also mean that passengers who, at present, go into Paddington to catch the HE back to Heathrow would not have to do so.

The coaches services from Reading drop passengers off at T5, T1 and T3, while on the return leave from the Central Bus Station and then T5 and on to Reading. Each one way trip takes just under an hour. By providing the rail connection then at least seven coaches could be taken out of service, with the resulting savings of diesel oil and elimination of exhaust fumes.  

As the Readng Chronicle article explains the rail link would depart Reading along the GWML towards London. Then it would leave the GWML just east of Langley station, run across country for about 5.5kms. to enter T5 in a tunnel to the two unused platforms which already exist there. Without doubt, by the time the link is built the GWML will be electrified to Reading at least.
Thus, it would only be necessary to extend the overhead electric power supply to T5 on the spur from Langley. The transport units can be the same as the ones used for the Heathrow Express and/or the Crossrail schemes.                                                                                                                                     
 

The probable route from Langley station (on the GWML) to Heathrow T5

On the other hand the connection Reading  - Heathrow should not be looked at in isolation.

The Reading Rail link will connect into T5 using two platforms which already exist but, as yet, have no takers. The question, therefore, arises about what can be done with this connection. The downside is that there is no further connection to other terminals. Can this be solved? Of course it can.

As we said before the Reading link and the HE link will use the same vehicles and overhead power system, which obviously means the two can run over the same lines. Therefore, the same systems can be used over the same lines as far as they will go. To run the Reading link from T5 to T3/T1 is so possible. To continue it to Paddington (just like the HE) is possible but a non-starter, since it is easier to go direct to Paddington from Reading along the GWML than through the airport.

On the other hand, if the decision were made to extend the Reading link to T3/T1 and then turn south to T4, we would end up with all the terminals connected to the rail system for the subsequent benefit of passengers, and subtracting a substantial number of cars from the roads.  Then, if the thinking were to extend the system the 2.5 kms. to Feltham rail station, we could provide the (old Airtrack idea) vision of a connection to Twickenham, Richmond, Clapham Junction and Waterloo, with all the connections to South West Trains (and others) which this implies.

However, our thoughts do not stop there. We refer you to our article on this blog , called Fast Trax 2 - the case for a Southern High Speed Alternative. This we call  SHSL published here  24th February 2010.

Since then our ideas have not changed - in fact with this news, actually reinforced. To connect T5 to the GWML and subsequently Reading and beyond, opens up all sorts of possibilities. From this conclusion we should not exclude services to Southampton in one direction, but more likely services to Oxford and Birmingham in the other (with all the connections implied there). The expensive and unnecessary HSR2 link from Central London would then be called into question.

We,even, go further and look at the possibilities of connecting the Irish boat services at Fishguard (from Rosslare) to Reading, to Heathrow and onwards. By onwards we see the line extended to Gatwick(thus providing the much sort after rail link to that airport). But why should services stop there? Can they not be extended to Ashford and on  to the Channel Tunnel and Lille? Here we would be talking about passenger and freight traffic which would eliminate from the roads all the lorries going to Ireland through Fishguard (if not other ports as well). This would be a tremendous saving in diesel oil and all the fumes that it implies by taking off the roads a very large number of lorries on a European designated priority route between Ireland, the UK and Continental Europe.

The ideas expressed in the said blog are still valid and worthwhile. It just needs a bit of common sense and political will to set the ball rolling - even if the whole process is done in a step by step approach.

Airtrack - is it worthwhile?

Airtrack is a rail project by BAA at Heathrow airport Terminal 5 to run trains along the South West Trains network to Waterloo, Reading and Guildford.The trains would leave Terminal 5 and travel south parallel to the M25, passing over Staines Moor, to join the Windsor line just north of Staines. Here the services would join the South West Trains network to travel on to their destinations.

One service would have stops at Staines, Feltham, Twickenham, Richmond and Clapham Junction before terminating at Waterloo. For the other services a new chord (joining line) would have to be built in the middle of Staines so that the trains can turn south. The Reading service would have intermediate stops at Bracknell and Wokingham while the Guildford service would have intermediate stops at Chertsey and Woking.Some Heathrow Express(HE) trains from Paddington would also be extended from Terminal 5 to Staines to provide a connexion to Paddington and maybe even on to Crossrail.The planned frequency for the three main services would be 2 trains per hour(tph) for each.  

The main idea behind the scheme is to provide better connections to the South West lines and at Clapham Junction and Waterloo to other services south of the Thames. The Reading and Woking services would offer alternative connections to the GWML and SWML (to Southampton etc.). The intermediate stops are planned to offer, for both passengers and airport workers, better oportunities to use public transport thus reducing dependency on the car while at the same time reducing traffic jams and exhaust pollution.

Without doubt BAA is also attracted to the lucrative Railair coach services linking Heathrow to Reading and Woking.  

Initially the proposal looks attractive. This is especially so in these constrained times since the project would be privately funded by BAA thus not affecting the public borrowing requirements of the Treasury.

However, this scheme should be looked at again. There are quite a few factors which make it less attractive than it is painted.

Firstly all the services would leave from Terminal 5 so would not serve the other terminals directly. The only exception to this are the HE services to Paddington which would go through the central terminal area (T1,2 & 3) but not Terminal 4. In the document prepared by BAA Heathrow & Arup for HSR2 Ltd. ("Improving Rail Connectivity to Heathrow" 20-10-09)they looked at the problem of availability and facility of connections in detail. Suffice it to quote one passage from the report . "Each time a passenger has to change between trains at each leg of the journey the total end to end journey time is increased by additional waiting time. The impact of this interchange penalty tends to be greater for passengers who are travelling with luggage, such as air passengers, and is particularly high for foreign travellers and those who are unfamiliar with our transport systems." (Point 4.4 Page 13) In this report it is thus recognised that the advantages of the service is lost to a certain degree when there is no direct connection.

Secondly there are problems with train paths. This means that even if the services were tremendously successful then there would be problems in finding room on the network for additional trains. The Windsor and Reading lines, in particular, are crowded so adding more trains, especially at peak times would only be possible by subtracting trains from other services - and that is definitely a non-starter. 

It has to be added that, especially on the Reading line, there are many level crossings. Even with the programmed additional trains many members of the public are opposed because more trains mean more closing times for the level crossings - and this would result in having an adverse effect of the road traffic in all the towns along the line. Apparently, building bridges or tunnels to substitute the level crossings also presents great difficulty in the space available and the disruption caused. 

We think that the scheme on offer is limited and does take into account the bigger picture of improving transport links in the south and south east of England. In fact we laid out a more detailed argument in our previous blog Fast Trax 2 - The case for a southern high speed alternative (SHSL)(24-02-2010)
Points 5 & 6 refer to our proposals to provide new services between Reading-Heathrow-Gatwick and Ashford as well as Heathrow-Waterloo. We repeat one quote to illustrate the shortcomings of Airtrack as presently laid down.
The report (Review of Business Case for AirTrack Scheme Proposals (Assignment Number 2004/00229)) prepared by  Ove Arup & Partners for the Strategic Rail Authority in July 2005 stated
"The AirTrack services that we have appraised would provide two trains per hour from each of Guildford, Reading and Waterloo to Heathrow Terminal 5. To provide sufficient capacity the introduction of these AirTrack services would necessitate the withdrawal of three trains from Reading to Waterloo in the morning peak period, two trains from Waterloo to Reading in the morning peak period, and 5 trains from Waterloo to Reading in the evening peak period. To compensate for the withdrawn services, additional stops to those assumed in the OBC would be required on some AirTrack services between Reading and Terminal 5."

We view CONNECTVITY as the keyword, not narrow short sighted commercial gain. Airports are to be connected to city centres, airports to airports, main lines to main lines, population clusters to population clusters and so on. That is the only way to provide decent public transport and encourage the public to leave the car at home. We laid out our arguments in FAST TRAX 2

and they are there to see so we will not bore you by repeating them. Basically it shows the case for a new line from the GWML at Reading to Ashford and the Channel Tunnel through the two airports. One of the reasons  would be to provide a relief line south of London so avoiding the capital and directing freight  (and passenger) traffic directly through the Chunnel and not blocking the bottleneck which London would become.

The subsequent benefits are substantial. Not only would BAA get its connecting trains but the possibility of direct inter-city passenger services  to Mainland Europe would also be opened up from BOTH Heathrow and Gatwick. This would result in fewer flights from BOTH airports. Is this not what the present government wants?

In Switzerland the direct connecting rail service between Geneva and Zürich airports has been operational for years. This means that the only intercontinental airport with regular services in that country is Zürich, while Basel and Geneva have been able to absorb the increase in holiday and business traffic - mostly  to/from the UK  and other destinations by Easyjet. 

 London Heathrow Airport from West Drayton to Feltham

As with every project these things will take time so will have to be done in parts. We suggest the start should be made with the line from Terminal 5 (at Heathrow) to the Central Terminal area then the curve south to Terminal 4 from where the line is extended to Feltham. This would provide the connection for the service to Waterloo at low cost. The terminus already exists at T5; a curve would be built at T1,2&3; the extension to Feltham would be new - but better with a new chord both west and east; and the new depot is already programmed for Feltham. Thus the three Airtrack services could be started with less disruption while serving all the terminals at Heathrow. The other elements of the SHSL would fall into place eventually but the main part through Heathrow would be in place from the start. Remember that both the Piccadilly extension to the airport and the HE line had to be expensively modified when T5 was built. Let us not make the same mistakes with short-termism thinking. 

Our politicians should take care with their sound bites and think constructively about problems while looking at private interests with scepticism. The ideas expressed here could provide a better solution to transport problems being part of a bigger picture. However, there is still a problem which has been identified and has still not been addressed. The need for a new runway in South Esat England is real and urgent. The present recession only provides a breathing space but the problem will not go away so we will look at it in the next blog.