High Speed Rail Lines - how to focus (other lines) 3/3

This is the third in a series of 3 articles about High Speed rail in the UK.

After writing about the routes to the Midlands, the North East and North West on their way to Scotland there is one grand high speed route that should be mentioned - the Great Western Main Line (GWML) to South Wales and the South West.

I will exclude from this review the third rail DC routes to the South and South East together with the routes to East Anglia(Kings Lynn and Norwich) as all these routes are dominated by commuter traffic so their problematic is different. Norwich might well be the exception. In any case most of these routes will be connected both north and south of London in the Thameslink programme.

Future train service patterns and operators will be determined by the DfT following a re-franchising process which is currently planned to take place in 2013. However, the intention is to link many new destinations north and south of London:

GWML: This famous line is the old GWR, or "God's Wonderful Railway", built/engineered by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Since is was originally built to a wider running gauge than the other railways at the time it provides more space for improvement works. Also it is straighter than is the case in many of the other original lines facilitating the elevation of line speeds. It is ideal for upgrading and upgrading is what it is receiving.

The GWML from Paddington to Bristol and onwards

With the Crossrail project running from Paddington to Maidenhead this section is already being electrified and improved. Obviously the logical next step is to extend the programme to Reading to include all the local services from there into Paddington but this has not been decided as yet. Electrification of the line to Reading and on to Bristol, together with the electrification to Cardiff and Swansea has been agreed upon. Extensions from Reading to Newbury and from Didcot to Oxford are also envisaged. These are important with respect to other proposed projects. The timetables as published by Network Rail are for completion to Bristol, Newbury and Oxford in 2016, with Cardiff being completed in 2017. No date is given for Swansea - probably 2018/19.



  However much the politicians try to convince us, we know that high speed rail travel should not be limited to radial routes from London. Passengers wish to travel from different points to others without necessarily passing through London.  As I have stated previously "Rail customers want to be able to  travel safely, in comfort and at reasonable prices between
the most densely populated parts of the country", yes, but this does not mean necessarily passing through London.

Other ideas have been floated and I have compounded them into one such project which I have called the "Southern High Speed Line" (SHSL).

Firstly, there were proposals to connect Reading with Heathrow airport. This was an idea based on the assumption (a) replacing the present Railair coach service run at 20 minute intervals so taking polluting buses off the roads, and (b) at some time in the future permitting GWML trains from Bristol and South Wales to run into Terminal 5. This was not a well thought out idea and was only a bit solution in any case. This I looked at on 6th October 2011.
 http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2011/10/reading-heathrow-rail-connection.html

Secondly, there was a proposal to link Heathrow and Gatwick airports, provisionally named "Heathwick". The idea was to connect the two airports with high speed trains so that they could be used interdependently. It would also replace the National Express coaches from Heathrow to/from Gatwick (100 per day).This was resoundingly and rotundly rejected by the parties affected and rightly so. I looked at this case on 11th October 2011. 
 http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2011/10/heathrow-gatwick-rail-link.html

 Thirdly: add these two projects together and you can see that it is a relatively short extension from Gatwick to Ashford and the Channel Tunnel. That way you can achieve direct rail services to Continental Europe without any difficulty, to Paris, to Brussels and onwards. Is this not what the rail lobby wishes? You obtain direct rail services from the two principal London airports on some of the busiest  short-haul air routes in Europe, to Paris, to Brussels, to Amsterdam and to Cologne/Bonn. Would these not end up reducing air traffic at the two airports and by extension free up landing/take off slots for other long-haul flights?All this and without transitting through London itself!!

Fourthly; from there it is a small step to start thinking about the very same European rail services starting from Reading. If they start from Reading , why can they not start from Birmingham or Bristol? We know that these possibilities are more complicated logistically for passengers but not so difficult for freight traffic. So let us think about freight traffic going from the Midlands and the West of England directly to Continental Europe without passing through London - by avoiding London it means we can avoid a probable bottleneck.

Fifthly; If you take the arguments from there and start to think about what traffic is through traffic, that which does not want or need to stop in England on its way to Europe, then you start to think about the traffic to/from Ireland to/from Continental Europe - both passenger, but principally freight. The non-stop passenger, car, freight rail services to/from Ashford to Calais have reduced substantially the sea ferry traffic. Since this is the case then would it not be the same for traffic to/from Ireland? Obviously there is no direct link to Ireland from Britain as yet except by ferry, but, however, would it not be quicker, more comfortable, and cheaper to provide through European services (by EuroTunnel) from Ireland to Continental Europe? Obviously, since there is no tunnel from Rosslare to Fishguard (the shortest route to Calais) the train services would have to start there, in Fishguard, meaning an extension of the ferryport to accomodate the most likely extension of the services. The train link would then be non-stop from Fishguard to Calais along the GWML, the Reading-Heathrow extension, the Heathrow-Gatwick extension and on to Ashford and the Chunnel.

Would not lorry(or car) drivers find that paying for the through route by train from Fishguard to Calais better than driving that distance, considering the time, the stress and the cost? Would it not be a double winner for Britain if such through traffic were taxed on the roads so as to make the cost of travelling by road or by rail the same? Would this not be the carrot to free up the roads and also free us  from the pollution if the traffic were transferred on to rail?

All, these ideas put together  bring us to the conclusion about a a dedicated line from Fishguard to Ashford
Thus my two blogs on 24th February 2010 ...
 http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2010/02/fast-trax-2-case-for-southern-high.html
..... and  15th May 2012
http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/who-wants-irish.html


If such a service could be provided, especially for freight traffic then could not the same be offered for freight traffic originating in Great Britain? Of course it could.
A site next to the GWML railway, and the motorways outside Bristol would be ideal to service freight(and car/passenger traffic?) from South Wales, the West, the South West and south Midlands non-stop to Continental Europe.
From a site near Birmingham - again next to the rail lines, the airport and the motorways - would be ideal, especially for freight traffic to run down to Reading and along the SHSL to Ashford and the Chunnel.
Both projects would make a significant effect on pollution and on traffic volume.

Transpennine Routes: The electrification of the Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Victoria line (via Chat Moss) will reduce the journey time between those two cities. Agreement has been reached to extend this electrification from Manchester to Leeds and on to York. That way the through services between Liverpool and Newcastle can run under the wires for its whole length. Unfortunately, the lines from Leeds to Hull (and Scarborough) are not due for electrification so these services will have to be diesel  wasting the benefits of electrification for most of its length. On the other hand trains could begin at Leeds but this is an inconvenience for passengers. Thus the line from Leeds to Hull (and possibly Scarborough) is an obvious candidate for electrification at the earliest opportunity.

The third service from Liverpool runs from Lime Street through Warrington Central and Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield, Doncaster on to Grimsby and Cleethorpes. This line is not electrified so diesels would be used. The logic for electrification is obvious since line speeds would increase substantially but the economic case has to be looked at which might torpedo any such project.

Problems might well arise at the Liverpool end. The line from Wigan and St.Helens into Lime Street is to be electrified. That could well mean that intercity services from Liverpool to Glasgow and Edinburgh would restart making present constraints in the station even worse. If the demand for Transpennine services increases then the problem could become acute. Then a strong case would be made to reopen Liverpool Central station (at ground level).

This is possible since the tunnel into Liverpool Central still exists and is partly used by the Merseyrail Electrics (the Mersey Tube). However, the tunnels were built for four tracks so still could be used for mainline services into a reopened mainline station at ground level. At the terminus the site is now occupied by a supermarket. This could be solved by rebuilding the supermarket on the top of the mainline station.

This way overcrowding at Liverpool Lime Street station can be alleviated. The old CLC services along the line from Manchester Central, Warrington Central into Liverpool Central could be restored thus cutting ten minutes off the present timetable which is the penalty for running into Liverpool Lime Street. Obviously at the Manchester end the old Manchester Central station is not available so services would run to and through Manchester Piccadilly as at present, without any time penalty.

Other lines:
The cross country traffic is quite substantial whether it be passenger or freight. Therefore,the main lines connecting these points are essential.
Bristol to East Midlands and Southampton to Birmingham come to mind immediately.
Phase 2 of HS2 from Birmingham to Nottingham (and onwards) is of paramount importance for traffic from Birmingham to Bristol and onwards. Birmingham is and will be an important interchange for passenger traffic which does not want or need to transit through London. Certain line straightening from Bristol to Birmingham would be necessary to increase the line speeds so as to make the line more attractive. Add that to HS2  to Nottingham and then there is a strong route all the way from Bristol and further afield to Leeds.

The Southampton to Birmingham line has already been targeted for freight. The first part is the section from Southampton to Basingstoke and Reading. This is three DC rail electrified.
the second part is from Reading to Didcot, Oxford and Aynho(just south of Banbury and Kings Sutton) and on to Birmingham. The section from Reading to Oxford is to be electrified with AC overhead wires. The section from Aynho(or near Banbury) is to be part of HS2 from London to Birmingham. That means that all that is needed is to join the section from Oxford to Aynho - which is about 27 kms. - with overhead  AC wires. This would make the connection from the South´s main port to the Heart of England and onward to East Midlands or the WCML at fast speeds a reality.

The Felixstowe to Nuneaton line has also been upgraded. This, however, is mainly thought of as a way to facilitate freight traffic from the East Coast port to the ECML and WCML. The loading gauge has been enlarged so that the larger containers can transit the lines so facilitating greater use of rail freight and so fewer lorries on the roads. It is not really thought for passenger traffic as the line has not been straightened and so the line speeds are still reduced.

Scotland : Obviously not all the trunk routes have been mentioned. There are three principal routes between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Which of these will be dedicated to high speed traffic as against serving local traffic is something the Scots know more about than this blogger so they will decide. They are already talking about a fast route.

The communications northwards are still anchored in the Victorian era. In such a large geographical area it is essential to use rail to vertebrate the country. The main cities to be offered better communication are Inverness and Aberdeen from both Glasgow and Edinburgh.   That way other important cities get connected like Dundee, Perth and Stirling.

The Borders have not been forgotten and could well achieve better communications with this blogger´s ideas about high speed lines from Carlisle to Glasgow and Newcastle airport to Edinburgh. The main lines were explained in the first blog of this series of three. (High Speed Rail Lines - how to focus (The Scottish Connection) 1/3 (31st January 2013)

At the moment the traffic forecasts probably would not make these high speed lines through the Border region as economical as wished for.That does not mean they should not be put into effect. For that reason regional services would be ideal. With stops along the line (off the main line) passing points would be provided for. These would be for slower regional stopping trains and freight trains. That way non-stop fast trains would not be impeded. Obviously not everything has to be done at once but should be included in the plans for long term solutions.


Conclusions:
Fast rail lines fulfill a desire and a need.  New and improved lines encourage people to travel by rail as has been proven in the last decade with the upgrade of the WCML. However, speed for speed´s sake is not justifiable. 400 kph. maximum running consumes enormous amounts of energy and makes turning circles so great that the lines cannot avoid any obstacle. This would mean slashing through the landscape and taking everything in its way before it. A lower maximum speed - but still fast - such as 320 kph. is more than enough for this small island.

Is there a need for new lines? HS1 from the Channel tunnel to St.Pancras showed that there is a need. The previous route to Waterloo was unsatisfactory as HSR trains had to mix with commuter traffic.

The question is if more HSR lines are needed. The answer to that question is mixed. If the question is line capacity alleviation then a new line has to be compared to increasing the number of tracks on existing lines. Doubling a twin track line to four track does not double capacity - it is more than that. Trains that run on the dedicated "fast" or "slow" tracks run more in accordance to the preceding and following trains so the distance between trains can be less - thus more run per hour.

When increasing the number of tracks these do not necessarily have to right next to the "old" track. The new tracks can be next to or near the "old" track, but the construction would take advantage of the line(or as I have said before the corridor) of the "old" track to straighten the "new". In that way higher line speeds can be provided for.

Are new lines necessary? As the command document on phase 2 of HS2 states HS2 is based on assumptions, such as having a dedicated separate line from terminus to terminus, which makes the idea inflexible, ridiculously expensive and obviously does not consider any extensions further north.This blogger considers that new lines should be built where essential but not as an end in themselves.

The greatest needs are for new lines at Shap in Cumbria, from Gretna Green to Glasgow and from Newcastle to Edinburgh.  At Shap the fast new section of the WCML would run through the mountains from Kendal to Shap thus cutting out the roundabout route. The line from Gretna would run near to the present WCML but seperate from it almost all of its length. The line from Newcastle would have a totally different route from the present ECML to make it much shorter as well as straighter. Nobody should balk at such suggestions as we know we are talking about infrastructure for the next 100 years (or more).

The rest of new construction would be relatively short sections to improve the total journey time. The longest sections would be from Derby to Stoke, and from Ayno to Birmingham airport(if my suggestions about HS2 are accepted). Phase two from East Midlands to Leeds would have, in my suggestions, short sections coupled with upgrades. Other new sections of line are marked on the respective maps but are not of significant length.

Will these solutions be expensive? Yes, but necessary. Will they be cheaper than the HS2 proposals? I do not doubt most of my suggestions would come out cheaper when all costs are taken into account. However, costs should be looked at in two distinct ways. The capital costs are an investment in improving infrastructure to satisfy the needs of the travelling public so would need to be accepted per se. The running costs of the improved services, when they are implemented, have to be controlled strictly so that the rail service for the general public can be offered at reasonable prices without necessarily losing money.  It is very noteworthy that SNCF, the State French Railways announced on 20 February 2013 the setting up of a cut price HSR service called OUIGO . SNCF unveils cheap high-speed service (ref: Rail.co website). This will provide, initially, a cheap TGV service from Paris to Lyon, Montpellier and Marseille.

The relevant question is why? Obviously, if all the capital costs of new projects  are included into the cost of a new line then it will never maker a profit. The sales price has to be such that the clientele use the service and there can be a profitable return, the public are not scared away by the ticket prices. SNCF obviously, want to fill up the TGV lines to capacity.  


However, remember, the capital costs can be allayed by subsidies from the European Union to a great extent so reducing the cost to the local market. The Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency was set up by the European Commission to help fund trans-European transport projects,so some or all of these projects qualify.

As a last point we should look again at the way benefits can accrue from High Speed rail lines as pointed out by the World bank and published here in Rail.co 22 Jan. 2013

N.B: Take note of these articles also....

"Speed not enough to entice people onto HS2"
http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/0416138-speed-not-enough-entice-people-hs2

"HS2 In Favour and Against" 

 http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2011/07/hs2-in-favour-and-against.html

 

Who wants the Irish....?

Who wants the Irish road transport traffic thundering down our roads, rattling our windows and belching out fumes that asphyxiate us? Nobody in their right minds would deny that any opportunity to get rid of such traffic, to Ireland or anywhere else, would be a boon.

Other countries, Switzerland and Austria are good examples, have to put up with large numbers of cars and lorries that transverse their countries on their ways southwards (or vice versa). The benefit accrued by such traffic is minimal if at all. At most they might stop for a meal and fill up the fuel tanks (if worthwhile). The lorries carve up the roads while paying no local taxes for the upkeep of those roads. So the authorities of those countries and other suchlike ones are rather peeved at the extra expense caused by the through traffic. Solutions have been mooted from special tolls for heavy goods traffic, to transporting the heavy traffic on through trains from one end of the country to the other. This is the solution that the Swiss, among others, have adopted.  

Great Britain, on the other hand has been largely immune to such problems because of its geographical position within the European Union. We are on the outskirts of Europe sharing this area bordering the Atlantic with Ireland. Both the northern counties (part of the United Kingdom) and the southern (the Republic of Ireland) import and export goods.A large number of these goods originate in/ are destined to Great Britain. However, an ever increasing proportion, and total volume, originate in/ are destined to other members of the European Union. Obviously, some goods are transported worldwide direct from/ into Irish ports, be they Belfast or Cork, by ships or aircraft. The vast majority, though, is transported by heavy lorry. 

To transport such loads of goods to France, The Low Countries, Germany and elsewhere, there are only two alternatives. The first is to transport them on ferries directly from Ireland to France. This is already done by "Celtic Link", "Brittany Ferries" and "Irish Ferries" operating from Cherbourg and Roscoff to Rosslare and Cork. The problems with these  connections is that they are long and arduous, especially in the winter gales in the Celtic Sea. The longest journey is from Cherbourg to Rosslare at 18hrs.30mins. while the shortest is at 13hrs.45mins. from Roscoff to Cork. These times mean that frequent trips are not possible being in total 8 sailings (in each direction) per week. The volume of traffic thus able to be carried is very limited.

The second, and only realistic, alternative to transport high volumes of goods traffic between Ireland and Great Britain is by using the direct ferries, be them to/ from Scotland, England or Wales. These lorries then progress to their destinations in Britain or cross the country to the east(or south) coast ports to continue their journey to mainland Europe; Newcastle for Scandanavia, Felixstowe for Holland, Dover for Belgium or France and so on. However, it is much more convenient, these days, to use the Channel Tunnel. 

Thus we come back to the original question. Do we want or need to accept that lorry and car traffic from/ or destined to Ireland should clog up British roads (and with all that entails)? 

 If we look at the realities of the situation then we can see that there are a lot of negatives apart from, noise, fumes, road wear, cluttering. How much is actually spent in GB on road tolls (nothing), petrol (only what is necessary), accommodation (only when part of a stop-off journey) food and drink(only when the time spent is excessive), other services(only when and where unavoidable)?

The authorities should then be thinking about putting the Irish traffic on rail from the west coast ports to the Channel Tunnel (and through it). This way it is taken off the roads and whisked through the country so that it does not affect us(negatively).Therefore, we have to look at the systems being used elsewhere.

The alternatives to driving along British roads are several proven systems. Obviously here we are talking about transferring the lorries on to rail wagons (cars are less of a problem since they are lower and not so wide).The greatest problems envisaged are the loading gauges (height and width) of the resulting wagon loads. Can the present (or future railways) accept the proposed loading gauge of the railways? Is there a viable system, tried and proven?

LORRY-RAIL is a company set up to carry unaccompanied semi trucks on the rail-road link from Bettembourg (Luxembourg) to Perpignan(France) (near the Spanish border)(1050 kms.)in one night only. This service opened for operation in September 2007. Here the trailers are put on the special swivelling wagons for transport. These have an extra low floor, only 22cms. above the rails, meaning they can easily carry standard 4 metre semi-trailers on UIC GB1 gauge rails. These are recognised as the minimum European gauge.

The advantages of this system are that less "dead wood" (the traction units) is carried and so more space is occupied by freight itself. The disadvantage is that any transport company would need traction units at both ends of the line - in itself a wasteful exercise and most likely not practical.

                                                  

Another system is that used by  ÖKOMBI - RAIL CARGO AUSTRIA.

This is the ROLA (rolling highway)system of roll on-roll off uniting road and rail transport on specially dedicated trains. The lorry is driven directly on to the special low-loading wagons and driven off at the destination of the train. All a relatively simple operation. During the ride, the truck drivers can relax in a "recreation wagon" staffed with service personnel. This company provides a network of seven routes from Germany and Austria to Italy, Slovenia and Hungary.

This Rola movie explains and illustrates the basic ideas

Among the conditions mentioned are that the lorries must not exceed 40 tons in weight,  2.6m. in width and 4m. height, with a ground clearance of at least 17cms.(though exceptions are possible).

Of course, nearer home there is a service which exists already between Folkstone (England) and Calais/ Coquelles (France). This runs through the Channel Tunnel and is owned and operated by Eurotunnel.

Eurotunnel Le Shuttle is a shuttle service between Calais and Folkstone conveying road vehicles by rail. Passenger and freight vehicles are carried in separate shuttle trains.The carriages used for the shuttle have a larger loading gauge than either British or French railways thus they cannot travel outside the tunnel and the two terminals.

However, there are vehicle restrictions shown (and explained) here.

The main loading restrictions are mostly because of the different specially built rolling stock to provide a service through the Channel Tunnel which is not only fast and frequent but also efficient for lorries, coaches, cars,motorcycles and foot passengers.

 http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uk/the-channel-tunnel/rolling-stock/

On that page you can see the different vehicles used for lorry and passenger shuttles. The larger vehicles are double deck shuttles for cars and motorcycles, which obviously require much more room (height) in the tunnel. The respective drawings are small but do show the distribution of the different vehicles on the different shuttles. 

What does all this mean for our Irish traffic? 

Well we have to find a way to transport all those lorries (and cars, why not?) from the west coast ports connecting us to Ireland and the Channel Tunnel.

The only real alternatives for use on the west coast are at distances which are not too far from the Channel Tunnel while the crossing to Ireland is the shortest so as to speed up the transfer of the vehicles as much as possible. That understanding would eliminate the use of the Scotland-Ulster crossings and the long ones from Liverpool, Fleetwood or Heysham.

We are left with the alternatives of Holyhead in North Wales, while in South Wales there are Pembroke and Fishguard. The latter provides the shorter crossing to Rosslare.

Using Holyhead means running up the WCML (West Coast Main Line) or the new HS2(High Speed 2) (when and if built).From Crewe to Holyhead there is no problem with more traffic but south of Crewe there will be serious problems. The WCML is the busiest rail artery in the country (and probably Europe). It is calculated that it will get saturated in the next decade(if not before). Even if HS2 is built then it certainly will not be ready till 2025 at the very earliest. What, in any case,  has to be faced is the connection from the Channel Tunnel, along HS1 (to London) and then to HS2 or the WCML. At the moment the connection is seen as right through the centre of London from the area of St.Pancras to the area of Euston.This short stretch of line is known as part of the North London Line and is a narrow bottleneck. It is shared by local stopping trains and both regional and long distance freight trains. And that is without considering the envisaged use of this bottleneck to help run passenger trains from north of London to mainland Europe. This is trying to do things on the cheap (and never works out the way envisaged) and is sheer and utter madness. 

The shorter and easier route is to South Wales to connect with Fishguard. Then we have our destination, Rosslare by ferry, from our transit port, Fishguard by train from our entry point at Folkstone.

Let us consider some facts. The line from Fishguard to London Paddington is part of the Great Western Main Line (GWML) built by the Great Western Railway(GWR) from 1838 to 1886(with the opening of the Severn Tunnel) by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. This great Victorian engineer had the foresight to build the line(s) to high standards so that they were straighter than other competing ones, to offer potentially smoother and higher line speeds using a broader gauge than most at 7ft.(2.13m.). This was eventually changed to standard gauge (1.435m) in 1892. The result of that construction was that the lines supported a broader loading gauge that other lines constructed in the country.

This GWML is now to be electrified from Paddington to Bristol and Cardiff. The cost was estimated at GBP 1000 million in 2010. Thanks to Brunel´s foresight the costs will be lower than on other lines(and certainly the WCML). There might well be a need to raise bridges(expensive) or lower tracks (a less expensive option) but the need to modify platforms or widen the distance between  tracks to accommodate European compatible vehicles is less likely and only at some points.

What will need to be done? The GWML will need to electrified from Cardiff westwards to Swansea and Fishguard. The port of Fishguard will have to be extended to accept longer trains and make easier transfers from ship to train for lorries and cars (not forgetting that this will bring new employment opportunities to West Wales). There is a problem at the Severn crossing due to saturation of traffic but no technical ones. (In fact the GWR introduced a car shuttle service through the Severn Tunnel from 1924 to 1966 when the bridge was opened. The rest of the line to Reading and London line is already approved.

Which route to take?

Here we have to look at previously made comments. As was stated before, taking the route through Central London means using the bottleneck of the North London Line to St. Pancras and HS1. This is just as mad as the previous option of using the WCML.

But there is a second option which was mentioned in the previous blog. Ideas have been floated about a Reading- Heathrow link and another about a Heathrow-Gatwick link. This blogger suggested combining the two ideas into a Reading - Heathrow - Gatwick link. Also, and this is most important, there is no great problem of an extension from Gatwick to Ashford, and therefore, the Channel Tunnel. Thus a direct link from the Channel Tunnel can be offered to Fishguard, bypassing the bottleneck of London, providing a through route for (non GB) Irish traffic.

This idea was previously expounded by this blogger under the heading

Fast Trax 2 - The case for a southern high speed alternative (SHSL)

on 24 February 2010.

We would thus have the desired connection from the Channel Tunnel to Fishguard, able to subtract the through Irish car and lorry traffic from our roads and at the same time offering a good, fast, safe,clean, environmentally friendly expressway across the country.

Moreover, it does not necessarily stop there. To take advantage of the new connection an opportunity for GB traffic to use the same tracks can be given. An interchange near Bristol, where the GWML, the M4 and M5 cross, at Almondsbury could prove a collecting point for British traffic (from South Wales, the West, the South West ) to offer a similar complementary service along the SHSL  to Calais (or Lille even). 

Our thinking should not stop there, however. The GWR was built as a broad gauge railway from Reading, through Oxford to Birmingham. The present modification scheme envisages the line from Reading to Oxford being electrified. It is no great problem to extend that to Birmingham (or even just Coventry which is already electrified). Thus a similar collection and dispatch centre could be established for car and freight traffic near Birmingham. This would preferably be to the east so that traffic from the north and east does not enter or cross the city. Little Packington offers a site, near the airport, on a GWML branch, between the A45, M6 and M42. This is an example of an excellent Central England collection point to subtract traffic from the M6, M40 and M1 and so distribute the European traffic so that it does clog up the South East, reducing pollution into the bargain. An alternative site could be between Ladysmith and Bloxwich (north of Birmingham) where the M6 and M45 converge.

Who should run the service?

This is not a priority point as yet. The present regulations permit the setting up of companies as open-access operators for the running of specific services. These are similar to the cases of the passenger services provided by Grand Central or First Hull Trains in (part) competition with East Coast . There are, however, legal connotations with regards to the services provided through the Channel Tunnel by Eurotunnel. In that case it might well be easier and quicker to set up such services by giving Eurotunnel the initial franchise. In later years the benefits of competing services can be looked at.

One last point about the destination. Might it not be better to make the destination somewhere in the area of Lille?. I know that this is for the French to decide but if you want to unclog the roads near Calais then we think it would be wiser to make any destination point somewhere south of the Tunnel where the distribution of traffic elsewhere the the motorway system is quicker and easier. We see that at (or near) Lille.

Conclusion:

Investment in infrastructure is done for reasons. In this particular case we want to take cars and lorries off our roads. We want to reduce noise, road wear, pollution and congestion. We most certainly want to make an investment worthwhile, whether it be for economic, social or environmental reasons.  Also it is paramount that such projects are feasible. This idea of a fast rail route through South Wales to Reading, then via Heathrow and Gatwick airports and connected via Ashford to the Channel Tunnel certainly fits these criteria. This is much more so when we combine these criteria with the international, national and regional rail passenger services envisaged through the airports, as explained in the previous blog. What is now needed is political willingness and effort to see the projects through to completion. Let it be so. 

Long-haul rail terminals under Heathrow and Gatwick.

This idea has been around for some time but as usual it means different things to different people.


A-The origins:

It firstly came from the engineering consulting firm  ARUP in September 2008. Basically the idea was to build a new interchange station directly north of Heathrow T5 on the GWML at Iver(Buckingham Advertiser 7th July 2010). This would connect with local, regional and long distance services on the GWML from where passengers would be fed to the various terminals by an unstated means. On the plan you can see that T4 was not connected while some fanciful T6 satellite terminals(right across the A4 Bath Rd.) were proposed for the third runway which would be connected too. All this was to satisfy present infrastructure demands but it went further than that. A high speed line (HS) was to be built into central London terminating at Euston. From there a connection was planned to the HS1 line to eventually merge somewhere near or before Stratford. From Iver the idea was to direct the HS line northwards to Birmingham and onwards, probably to merge with HS2 or even replace it. No details of the planned routes were given. That idea has not progressed but other less ambitious ones have appeared.

B-The Present Situation

T5 was constructed with six rail platforms,two for the LUT Piccadilly line, two for the Heathrow Express(HE) services to Paddington, and two more for, at that time, new undefined services. Airtrack was a proposal by BAA to build on the success of HE by offering new services from those two platforms to Reading, Guildford and Waterloo plus an extension of HE services from T5 to Staines. These services did not come to fruition. They can be seen in ARUP´s pdf. file.
The Airtrack proposals proved to be non-starters and were dropped in autumn 2011.
There are no extra rail platforms either in the the Central area(T2 &T3) nor at T4.

C-Initial New Proposals

The idea of a connection to Reading remained and appeared in a proposal by  the UK Transport Secretary,  Philip Hammond, to build a connection from Reading along the GWML and into T5 - a shuttle service to be run 4 times per hour. This very limited idea was to replace the RailAir coaches to Reading station with approximately the same frequency.

Our thoughts on this proposal were expounded on this blog

http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2011/10/reading-heathrow-rail-connection.html

on 6th October 2011

This was followed up two days later by a proposal to connect Heathrow with Gatwick  to try to make them operate as one airport named Heathwick (ughh!!)

We also looked at this proposal on 11th October 2011

http://trans-trax.blogspot.com.es/2011/10/heathrow-gatwick-rail-link.html

We do not need to reproduce all the arguments we used to reject the proposals - many well-known business personalities have voiced their disapproval.The two proposals were floated and nothing of substance has been heard of them since then.That makes one think that the government was only sounding out opinion - and did not like the reaction.

The way they were presented and the little substance in their content made them totally rejectable. However, if these ideas were not taken separately but were part of a larger plan then they could be looked at differently. We would like to emphasise that we would like people to look at the complete picture.

D-The Real Reasons

The government wants to build a spur from HS2 into Heathrow. The idea is to offer an alternative to domestic air travel so as to reduce traffic through the airport. They ignore that an assessment commissioned by the previous Labour government, and repeated by the Coalition government came up with the same conclusion. The demand satisfied by a direct HS spur does not justify its construction because of the low numbers concerned - about 2000 pax. per day. Not all potential destinations are connected by rail or even would not benefit by an HS spur. There are many destinations where air links are essential (Northern Scotland, Ireland and the other British Isles) while rail links are impossible.

Even with HS2 completed up to Glasgow and Edinburgh there will still be a demand for substantial air travel to those cities, without mentioning Aberdeen and Inverness.(the HS trains have not killed the air traffic between Paris and Lyon, Madrid and Seville or Barcelona).Despite ignoring these realities the government wishes to imagine people travelling everywhere in Great Britain by train. The ministers should try it some time and not just for the photo call.

There are manifest practical difficulties to run direct HS trains from Heathrow to HS1 and on to mainland Europe.The proposals being mooted involve inordinate difficulty, disruption and cost into London and through to Euston. It will be like forcing more content through a bottleneck - the weak link is from Camden Town to St. Pancras - already designated a major freight route (plain madness). Has the government even thought out the practical difficulties of trying to offer direct rail connections from outside London to European cities? Not at all, even though many doubts and objections have been aired on forums, blogs and interested pressure group websites.

The real problem is that the government has painted itself into a corner and does not know how to get out. It has come to the conclusion that its initial prohibition of new runway building at 3 London airports is a non-starter. Whatever the long term solution, the problem of undercapacity is immediate and needs solving now. That is why the government´s long awaited policy document on aviation has been postponed from March to summer 2012.

E-Thinking outside the box;

Building the Reading-Heathrow and  Heathrow-Gatwick links separately is extreme stodgy thinking with only limited benefits and acceptance. Combining the two ideas into one link from Reading to Gatwick opens up all sorts of possibilities, not least providing a one-stop link from  South Wales, Bristol, and the South West to the two principal UK airports. Also from Reading connections to Birmingham and further north can be provided to link to the two airports.
Extending the line from Gatwick 73kms., over mostly open ground, to Ashford then we have a direct link to HS1 and through the Channel Tunnel to mainland Europe.
This achieves bypassing the bottleneck which is London. We avoid the prohibitively expensive and disruptive construction of a fast line through west London and relieve the clogged transport system of the capital.

The opening of such a line from Reading to Ashford gives us the chance to substitute the RailAir coaches plying between Reading and Heathrow, and the National Express coaches (up to 6 times per hour) between Heathrow and Gatwick. These would be with a greater frequency and greater reliability. However, they need not stop there. There is scope for trains to stop on route at such places as Feltham, Guildford, Woking while on to Ashford at Tonbridge. Thus the service becomes really regional offering connectivity to the airports and at other interconnecting points to other parts of Great Britain.

What make the rail ideas attractive are the possibilities of offering mainline European services  which do not transit London. The present Eurostar train services go to Paris and Brussels from London St.Pancras. The German railway company DB plans to run services also from London but onwards from Brussels to (i)Amsterdam, and to (ii)Cologne and Frankfurt. Imagine if such services were offered from Heathrow and Gatwick. Part of what the government wants - a lowering of demand at those airports - with the reduction of flights to Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Cologne, and Frankfurt, would be achieved. The effect would most probably be more than any desired effect on domestic flights. This would certainly be a way of damping down demand on air, runway and terminal space.

In these cases passenger services tend to be the only ones mentioned, however,  freight is of extreme importance. The possibilities are tremendous and so need a separate blog, which will be the next when we deal with what we call the SHSL (Southern High Speed Line).

F-The Heathrow Interchanges Stations;

To get back to the idea of interchange stations at Heathrow (and at Gatwick) then we have to imagine one  built specially for purpose, most certainly connected to the present rail/tube stations. When we think of local or regional services then we think of convenience. This would mean one station at each terminal - T5, T2/3 &T4. With a long distance station we tend to think of one for a whole complex - so probably situated at Heathrow Central.

However, we have to separate the ideas of domestic and European services because of the question of immigration controls.

For the trains to originate at Heathrow there is a whole complicated problem of turnback and parking facilities, all underground or well away from the airport. It is much better to start these services at an existing rail hub which can absorb such space demanded, and the ancillary services needed even on the surface.

Thus, if the trains do not originate at Heathrow but at Reading then the platforms, at the airports, would be through platforms not terminating ones.The trains could stop at each terminal providing the convenience for the passenger. Unfortunately, I believe, that the present track layouts mean that such a through line with its corresponding platforms would have to be completely new (undergound obviously).

To make the use of the rail station(s) popular accessibility is the word. The stations will be underground at the airports with three platforms provided for the regional and national services - one "up", one "down"and one for overflow/accidents etc. The same would be needed, but separate, for services to Europe. This means a total of six platforms.

The rail tunnels would be like the present Channel tunnel with two main separate tunnels with a service tunnel between. This would allow the flexibility and security demanded of an enclosed environment. Trains running on the surface might find two tracks to be sufficient.

The point of having six platforms in the terminals is to separate the international from the domestic passengers. To do this by limiting access to all the platforms according to the type of train which is leaving(or arriving) is complicated and time consuming. It is simpler and much more efficient to have separate platforms. That way domestic passengers can gain access to the 3 domestic platforms in a constant, unimpeded way facilitating their onward transportation.

International passengers, on the other hand, can gain access to their 3 platforms in a more relaxed manner having passed through Border Controls. If there is just one Central Area international set of platforms then passengers would have to go through Border Controls to land-side and then again through the controls to air-side to their flights. This is unnecessary duplication of Border Controls for what are transit passengers( the queues and time wasted would be horrendous) This would be done having changed to the relevant terminal, which might well be an inconvenient connection away. However, if there were international platforms at each terminal (T4, T2/3 &T5) then the transfer to flights could be directly on to the flights, or from the flights (with controls at the destination). Why should there be a difference in treatment between air and rail passengers? The train would be considered just a connecting "flight" with luggage collected at the destination. (The Swiss do this really well.)  Heathrow has already passed the 70 million pax.per annum mark and is well on the way to 100 million pax.per annum.(Like it or not this is a realistic figure to be looking at in the next ten years - before any other capacity is brought online) Is it not necessary to look at constructive ways to facilitate movements?

The trains would then have stops both for domestic services(long-distance and regional) and international ones at each of the three terminals, T5, T2/3 and T4.   Gatwick, on the other hand would only need one underground station. That way it could fit under the present surface one and be able to cross it west-eastwards without interference (including the differing electrical traction systems).

G-Conclusion:

Long-haul rail services from Reading through Heathrow and Gatwick to mainland Europe.
This way they start at Reading and provide connections - north, west and south west - to other services which means that London does not need to be clogged with transit passengers. Border controls are carried out at Reading and the airport terminals direct to the European destinations.
The result would be a marked decrease in short haul air traffic to mainland Europe while increasing the airport accessibility for towns and cities in northern France, the Benelux countries and north west Germany (including all the Ruhr). This would provide a greater demand for medium and long-haul routes from Heathrow and Gatwick, and also on domestic/Irish routes.

The new rail infrastructure provides capacity for domestic regional routes between Reading and Ashford for any stopping places on route. Access is improved for passengers and workers to the airports leading to less road traffic. These connections would reduce the need to travel through the bottleneck of London.

Long-haul domestic rail routes could eventually be offered from Gatwick (or even Ashford) to many places south-west, west and north, and maybe even to Scotland, all without the need to pass through Central London reducing the demands on the capital´s overstretched transport infrastructure.

Does it offer any other possibilities? Yes it does, particularly with freight but that will be dealt with in the next blog.

A new airport in the Thames Estuary, vision or folly?

In November Lord Foster added to the debate about the need for extra airport capacity in  the South East of England when he published his proposals for a new massive airport to be built in the Thames Estuary.These complement London Mayor Boris Johnson´s proposal for a new airport in the same area.The article from the Daily MailOnline (3 November 2011) provides this illustration.

However, a more informative article is provided by FLIGHTGLOBAL ("New London airport proposed to address Heathrow congestion woes" 3 November 2011)

The choice of the actual sites has been made for a variety of reasons. The most important is the need for airports to be taken away from built-up areas so as not to cause acoustic and exhaust fume pollution to the residents, workers and school children under the flight paths of the present airports, as well as safety reasons. All that is true and very real.

Other reasons given are numerous such as the need to have the airport operable 24 hours per day - especially to facilitate the night time use of the runways for freight traffic. Even for passengers there would well be an advantage in 24 hour use. By having more flexible hours the possibility of extending the take off/ landing times means the ability of offering a greater variety of operating times at the distant airports. Also connecting flights might arrive later into the airport at night and leave earlier in the mornings. This is not an unappealing option for arriving passengers whose body clock is out of kilter because of differing time zones.

Four runways would facilitate the ability to increase the number of slots(takings off and landings) so that more airlines and more destinations can be on offer to connect this "London Estuary" airport to the world. This is important, in the case of long haul traffic, since many more destinations could be offered with fewer restraints on airlines from distant countries being able to fly into a large hub and offer connecting flights (or other transport modes). For short haul traffic it is important to a country like Britain in that it would enable the airport to offer flights to/from the outer reaches of the British Isles - meaning the UK, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles - together with less accessible places such as the Faroe Islands and Iceland where rail connections are no option. Even many outer reaches of mainland Britain  might gain where rail is no real option - such as Aberdeen, Inverness, Plymouth(now closed), Exeter or Newquay.

Underneath the airport there would be rail stations to provide access to local services(in the south-east of England, including a connection to Central London) and inter-city long distance services (to the major conurbations) in England, Wales and Scotland. Rail services to the European mainland could also be offered through the High Speed 1 (HS1)railline  nearby by a short connection. An estimated 300,000 passengers daily would use all the rail services providing a better and faster service than road traffic.

Additional advantages would be built in - such as another Thames barrier to stop flooding in the upper estuary area while at the same time generating electricity through tidal flows. This would power the needs of the airport and some of the surrounding areas.

The estimated capacity of the airport would be 150 million passengers annually. This is more than double Heathrow´s present annual passenger traffic.

 Need?
There are some who question the need for increased runway capacity in the South East of England. They point out that London has five airports of which only Heathrow is effectively operating at capacity. There are good regional airports serving their cities or conurbations which are operating at below capacity which could well absorb the needs for far greater numbers than at present only if the flights were provided at the local airports. The greater use of railways would reduce the need for domestic flights and where using a London airport is unavoidable then rail connections to/from the airports (such as the proposed rail-spur from HS2 - London to Birmingham - into Heathrow and out to Europe via HS1).

The most influential group following these ideas are the Liberal Democrats who are the junior partners in the British Government at this time. They were the ones who proposed a ban of any sort of runway expansion at London´s Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. The first breech in this policy is beginning to appear. FLIGHTGLOBAL, again, reported on 29th November "UK govt to explore all airport capacity options,bar Heathrow expansion".

The need for runway expansion in the SE is expressed by large and important sectors, though general public support is not there. 

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson  "Mayor says new hub airport vital for London and UK’s future prosperity and growth" (london.gov.uk, 18 January 2011)
Virgin Atlantic Airways  "Virgin warns of £1.7 billion threat to UK economy" (ABTN, 26 August 2011)
British Airways´Chief Executive, Keith Williams "British Airways demands Heathrow expansion"(BREAKING travel news, 19 October 2011)
The Institute of Directors  "Business leaders warn UK will suffer without added airport capacity"(ABTN 20 October 2011)
Sir Michael Bishop (now Lord Glendonbrook) former owner and chief executive of the airline group BMI "Airport restrictions 'damaging economy', Tory peer says"(BBC News 30 October 2011)
........ among many others, and these are only from 2011, after the government had already decided to stop expansion at the London airports.

There are reports prepared by very different organisations which are more detailed.....
BLOOMBERG "Heathrow Airport Resists Capacity Crunch as Noise Bar Favors Coastal Hub"(14 December 2011)  This is a balanced article explaining what is happening at Heathrow, with its limitations, and the Thames estuary alternatives, as proposed.

CAPA Centre for Aviation "London’s Heathrow competitive disadvantages are beginning to hurt" (11 April 2011) A short article with some up front data reflecting the postions of the airlines, together with destinations as well as market shares.

anna aero "A Hoover Dam in the Thames – the growing political will to replace Heathrow with an all-new airport" (24 November 2011)  This is a strong article with relevant easy readable data comparing the five London airports and the type of customers as well as the numbers involved.

Vision?
There have been a lot of words spoken and written about the need to stop looking for patchwork solutions and return to the days of our our great Victorian ancestors. Those entrepreneurs, investors and engineers built tremendous infrastructure. Not only did they cover the country with the revolutionary new form of transport and communication, the railway, but also accomplished engineering feats to achieve these projects.Bridges, tunnels, magnificent stations, hotels and port facilities were all among their achievements. These skills were then exported to the world to build railways across continents and mountain ranges which were unimaginable a generation earlier to change the lifestyle of everybody who came in contact with this means of transport.

Why cannot we think in those terms yet again, to achieve marvels, especially with the latest form of travel, air transport? Cannot we provide construction and manufacturing jobs to boost the economy?

Folly?
It all sounds good but there is a lot to look at before such an endeavour can be attempted again. A macro-airport by the Thames is a macro-project so the government will be involved  one way or another. Even if the airport itself is constructed with money provided by private investors - not a sure thing - the taxpayer will have to put up the money to connect the airport to the national road and rail networks. This alone is not cheap. Also, more than likely, the government would have to provide backing for private investors (Politically, and economically, who could permit an investing bank, insurance company or pension fund go bust if everything went wildly wrong?) The crisis of 2008 demanded an excessive amount from the taxpayer to prevent a recession. 2011 only aggravated the economic situation, and subsequently government finances, in western Europe due to the crisis with the Euro, even in the UK (outside the eurozone).    

This means such a macro-project would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to finance. We do not have to look far into the past to see comparatives. The investors in the Channel Tunnel (1980s-90s)effectively lost their investment with the cost overruns, during construction, and low traffic figures during the first years of operation. At the very best they will recuperate the initial investment at the end of the 21st Century. Everybody will be very wary.

Lord Foster estimated the cost of his project at GBP50 billion (about €60 billion). His company was the architect for Hong Kong´s new twin runway airport  built in the bay off Lantau Island. This, of course, means he should know what he is talking about with regards to facilities, construction time and cost. Incidentally, Hong Kong´s government is now considering a third runway at the airport(Air Transport World 29 December 2011 "Hong Kong airport third-runway recommendation goes to government"). 

However, people will be cautious and even reluctant to invest in such a macro-project. The Channel Tunnel is a monopoly - there is no alternative rail route to mainland Europe - though there are other forms of transport. The Estuary airport is not a monopoly. It will be competing not only with other forms of transport but also with other airports, both within the UK and on mainland Europe - not least Paris (CDG) and Amsterdam(Schipol).


Even if we disregard Paris and Amsterdam there is no guarantee that London Estuary will attract the airlines and so the traffic. The airports at Southend (no big loss) and London City (much to the chagrin of businessmen in the City and Docklands) would be forced to close - their take off/landing paths would clash or be too close together. But "Estuary" would not affect Stansted, Luton, Gatwick or Heathrow. There is no talk or proposal for them to close.


To give an example of what would happen. In the 1970s Gatwick was still underutilised so the government of the day tried to get all the foreign airlines to transfer to Gatwick. They refused point blank and insisted that they stay at Heathrow with British Airways. It must be mentioned, and emphasized, here that we are talking about a time when route capacity was shared equally between the foreign carrier and BA. In that case no carrier could dominate the routes and competition with other carriers was severely limited. Now we are talking about a time of free movement without government controls on capacity not only in Europe but also to other countries. Thus obligation on carriers to transfer to "Estuary" is a non-starter. The airlines want to stay together where the traffic is generated. 

Another example is in Japan where airlines were forced to fly into specific airports.Have not the Japanese opened up to foreign airlines, again,  the more central Tokyo Haneda airport to compete with the designated international airport Tokyo Narita and this has been accepted with open arms by the foreign airlines?


One could talk about other details of objections but the list would be extensive. Suffice it to say that .......
- a project for an estuary airport(Maplin Sands) was looked at in the 1970s and rejected. Neither the weather nor the migration habits of the wild geese have changed in the interceding years.
- A massive gas plant is located on Lord Foster´s site (the Isle of Grain)providing a high proportion of the UK´s gas needs, which would have to be relocated together with a power plant.
- There is a large sunken ship loaded with undetonated explosives lying off the Island which could prove extremely dangerous if disturbed (even by vibrations from constant aircraft movements)
- The flight paths for landings/take offs would infringe on Dutch air space which obviously they would object to, especially as the Estuary would be in competition with Schipol - the approaches are from the east-south-east and not north-east as stated in the article.
- though four runways are envisaged are they not too close together for interference by airwake thus restricting usage of parallel runways?
- Are all the costs included (such as movement of other facilities as mentioned)?
There are many more questions which put into doubt such a project.

This blogger has posted opinions before about the whole question of new runways in the South East of England and my opinions are well stated there about this folly.
on 20 March 2010   "Runways in South East England"
on 5 July 2010   "Luton - The Next Best Bet ?"
on 26 January 2011 "a new airport for London"
and 3 September 2011 "Half Way Hubs"
Other solutions do exist but need a little lateral thinking.

And a Happy New Year.

Heathrow - Gatwick Rail Link

 Just after Trans-Trax published its ideas about a proposed Reading - Heathrow link, another idea has been floated; that of a rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick airports. This was firstly mentioned on the BBC  and Daily Mail(including a map proposal) on 8th Oct. followed by Breaking Travel News. Even London Mayor Boris Johnson had his pieces to say to support  the scheme in the Evening Standard (10th Oct.).and Daily Telegraph (11th Oct).

Heathrow - Gatwick Rail link, a possible route

As Trans-Trax has proposed in this last (Reading - Heathrow) post and in other previous ones, it seems that the UK Government is taking on board some of the ideas expressed in this blog.We cannot but be satisfied.

The basic premise is to build a new line from Reading, through Heathrow and Gatwick to Ashford where it would connect to the Channel Tunnel. This idea  is called SHSL, published 24th Feb.2010. It is redundent to explain all the implications as they have been well looked at in the previous posting Reading - Heathrow Rail Connection (6th Oct.2011), amongst others.

The interesting thing is that the idea has been floated, which is the first stage in the process of convincing voters. However, it must be mentioned how the government goes about this because it is not crystal clear.The problem with governments is that they do not tell you the whole truth, usually because they are afraid of upsetting too many voters at the same time - the old addage applies -  divide and rule.

To understand this you have to look back at other policies.Why does the government want a HSR2 spur into Heathrow? To add travel time on its way north? To connect to HSR1 through that bottleneck of inner London? The idea on its own is absurd. The results would never justify the cost. However, if you plan to have direct trains from the airport to other cities then the idea falls into place. Run trains from Heathrow to Manchester and Leeds so the reduction in air traffic releases slots. With the resulting reduction in rail journey times then there would be knock-on effects for traffic to Newcastle and Scotland, with a reduction in demand for air transport. Government thinking is that more slots would be freed up. As a result the need for a third runway disappears thus justifying the decision. Unfortunately, such thinking is extremely simplistic, and as such this blogger considers it short-sighted and erroneous.

The connection Heathrow - Gatwick is part of the same thinking. Provide a fast link between the two airports and you, thus, reduce the need for competing flights from both airports. You also  treat Gatwick as another terminal and so integrate the airport into the workings of Heathrow, and subsequently you are able to use any spare capacity there for long haul slots.

What the Government does not say is that if you continue the rail line the 73 kms. due east across open country you arrive at Ashford to link up with the Channel Tunnel (This will be done eventually if intial reactions are not wholely negative). As a result you would be able to offer direct train services from both Heathrow and Gatwick to Paris, Brussles, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Düsseldorf, Cologne and even Frankfurt.This is the sort of service the Government wishes to emulate which already exists in airports such as Geneva and Zurich.

Gatwick - Ashford rail Link a proposal

How many slots would then be released for other services? The Government would consider very many but the real number would probably not be so many in an ever expanding market.

Take the idea further and connect the the Gatwick - Heathrow link through T4, T1/3 and T5 to the recently mentioned Heathrow - Reading link. Then you have your connections to the West and South Wales(via the GWML), but also to Oxford, Birmingham and destinations northwards.

Pie in the sky? I do not think so. 

It must be mentioned that not everyone is in favour of a Heathrow - Gatwick rail link. Willie Walsh, the chief executive of IAG(parent company of BA), was the quickest off the mark, in the Daily Telegraph (9th & 10th Oct), Reuters(9th Oct.), and Railnews.co.uk(10th Oct.) rejecting the proposal. This was followed by Breaking Travel News (10th Oct.) where the Board of Airline Representatives (BAR UK) in the name of 86 airlines rejected the proposed rail link.

To understand this it should be said that the airlines are concerned about the lack of runway capacity in South East England, especially in the places into which they wish to fly. The rail link, itself, they would accept and even welcome, but certainly not as an excuse to not deliver on a new third runway for Heathrow and/or a new second runway for Gatwick, or any other new runway at Stansted or Luton.  The Government is thinking that the slots released would satisfy mid-term future demand. On the other hand the airlines know that you are making the airport network more attractive so potentiating demand thus annulling the sorted after effects.

The costing of the project is of very high importance because it would obviously fall on the taxpayer while the third runway at Heathrow was to be paid for by its users, the airlines, and not the general taxpayer. However, many projects with a European perspective have been financed in large part by the EU. It all depends what happens to the EU cohesion fund when it is up for renewal in 2013.

The position of this blog is clear. On its own the link is expensive and hard to justify, even though a rail link between the two airports is more than welcome. If fact it would take off the roads 4 coach services per hour in each direction - meaning about 12 coaches in total with what that means in diesel consumption and exhaust fumes. Add that to the savings made on the Reading - Heathrow service (7 coaches) and the savings become considerable. The important thing is to put this into context. A Reading - Heathrow link and a Heathrow - Gatwick link seperately are illogical. A Reading - Heathrow - Gatwick service makes sense. This would connect the two airports but also open up connections from the west and north without funneling more traffic through that bottleneck called London. To extend the line to Ashford is the next logical step, not just for local services to Ashford(with passing points on the way), itself, and on to Margate, but also long-haul services directly through the Channel Tunnel to continental Europe. The possible variations of services are numerous.

NB: If the name proposed for this new rail link is Heathwick, then is the Reading - Heathrow rail link Readrow? Awful and stupid names.