New runways should be chosen for both Heathrow and Gatwick.

Heathrow cargo soars in the wake of Britain’s Brexit vote (11-10-16) 
"Heathrow welcomed a record number of passengers in September, with 6.8 million travelling through the UK’s only hub airport"which means 75.36 million  pax over the previous 12 months.

 

Gatwick’s record growth and booming long haul services continue to defy Airports Commission predictions (10-10-16)
"In September, 4.3 million passengers travelled through the airport which is +6.9% on the same month in 2015. Gatwick now serves 42.3 million passengers a year – this is a milestone the Airports Commission forecast Gatwick would not reach until 2030."

and just to show that the other airports are not affected negatively............

Stansted tantalisingly close to pre-recession passenger numbers (12-10-16) 
"The total number of passengers using Stansted in the 12 months ending September reached 24,009,348, up 8.4 per cent on the previous year and just 6,000 short of the record high set in October 2007........During September, nearly 2.2 million passengers passed through Stansted, up seven per cent on the same month last year and the second busiest September ever for the airport."

A record 14 million passengers use London Luton over the last year(13-10-16)       ".....the rolling annual total of passengers using the airport passed the 14 million mark for the first time....The airport saw its 30th consecutive month of passenger growth in September...... a record 1.4 million passengers chose to fly from the UK gateway last month."

There is a lot of pent-up demand which cannot be completely satisfied under the present slot restricted regimes at the two principal airports.

This blogger has never hidden the fact that he firmly believes in a new runway at each of the two airports............

..............................................but under what conditions?
The government is said to be making its decision in the next few days. This is a resume of the salient points to be included. 
 

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

 

Heathrow:

The plans have already been presented to the public, with the favourite alternative at LHR being the third runway to the north of the present runways and between the A437 Bath Road and the M4 Motorway.

Heathrow 3rd runway option over M25

Heathrow airport has its own website ("Heathrow the Right Choice") to explain its plans for expansion and a third runway.

 Musts: for the third runway

• be between 3km and 3.5km. long x 45m. wide (to enable it to be used for up to large aircraft in exceptional circumstances when one of the others is closed. To be operated in mixed-mode for all the flights from its terminal so that there is no crossing of runways to the present terminals 2,3,4 and 5). 
• extend no further west than the M25 (with any planned widenings factored in) and far enough to the east so that the terminal can sit next to or above the new railway station below ground (thus excessive walking distances to public transport can be avoided)
  
• have a dedicated terminal for all its flights (this used to be called T6 but could take the name T1 to replace the demolished terminal of that name) 
• have a new railway station to be built underground to provide connections to the other terminals and central London (thus Crossrail and Heathrow Express can stop for passengers - to connect to the London Underground both HE as well as Crossrail trains would stop at Ealing Broadway)
• be limited to medium and small jet aircraft plus turbo props (this could mean up to the size B737, A320 and similar plus exceptionally what is needed for flights to Israel if bigger).
• be aircraft with low polluting thresholds (establishing strict limitation goals for the opening of the runway).
• operate airside all vehicles of whatever type which are non-polluting. (no combustion-engined vehicles at all from the opening date)
• be for British Isles and other island flights plus Benlux destinations (so that every British and Irish destination is served if so desired - this can be extended to the flights of other countries like Israel and Switzerland. This can be further refined to include other European island countries such as Iceland, Malta, Cyprus and the Faroes)
• operate strict hours to be established for normal operations but flexible enough to vary slightly in exceptional circumstances (this would include the ability of operators to reposition aircraft when affected by e.g.adverse weather conditions)
• establish a clear short-term timetable for these anti-pollution measures and the operating hours to be applied in the rest of the airport airside, and then to be extended to the whole airport within a generation.(this would include cars, taxis, buses, coaches and commercial vehicles unless they used non-polluting propulsion and thus promote the use of public transport)
• the financing of any expansion in the airport is the sole responsibility of the airport itself (the government will only finance complementary infrastructure outside the airport boundary where necessary - this will encourage the airport to make the investment without expensive embellishments)
• Reinstate a modified Cranford Agreement about the alternating use of the north(actual but future central runway) and south runways which was abolished in 2010
• Start planning and programming the connection by new railway line from Reading to Heathrow to Gatwick, and the extension from Gatwick to Ashford so as to be able able to provide direct rail services to mainland Europe, to be completed by 2030 (insofar as these works affect the airport).

• demand that Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd. redraws its plans for a third runway so as to make it less unnecessarily complex and intrusive thus reducing the cost.(e.g. are so many taxiways needed in their latest plans?)
• combine the Heathrow Express services with the Stansted Express services so that passengers from both can enter into central London without having to disembark at their terminal stations, and access can be direct between the two airports.

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

 

Gatwick:
has been London´s second airport for many decades but is growing at such a rate that a second runway is considered necessary for future development.
The placement of the additional runway will affect fewer townships/villages than at Heathrow. The construction can be started after the end of the limiting agreement with West Sussex Council which runs out in mid 2019.
The runway can be built and operative before the new terminal is opened.  

Gatwick airport with second runway and third terminal.

Gatwick aiport has an extensive website (here) to explain its design on expansion including a second runway.

 

 Musts: for the second runway

• be between 3km and 3.5km. long x 45m. wide (to enable it to be used for up to large aircraft just as the present runway is used)
  
• start construction as soon as possible so that it can be brought into service asap even before the opening of the new terminal and its satellites.
• have a dedicated terminal and satellites for all the flights which avoid, where possible, conflicting ground movements of aircraft manouvering between terminals.
• a new light rail system to be built underground or overground to connect all the terminals and to the central National Rail station(thus Gatwick Express and other regional rail companies can serve all passengers without multiple changes of vehicles)
• the same light rail inter-terminal system would connect a central bus/coach station and car parks for private vehicles. 
• be limited to aircraft with low polluting thresholds (establishing strict limitation goals for the opening of the runway).
• operate airside all vehicles of whatever type which are non-polluting. (no combustion-engined vehicles at all from the opening date)
• be open for any operator/ to any destination but only passenger and freight traffic. (no private flights)
  
• operate strict hours to be established for normal operations but flexible enough to vary slightly in exceptional circumstances (this would include the ability of operators to reposition aircraft when affected by e.g.adverse weather conditions)
• establish a clear short-term timetable for these anti-pollution measures and the operating hours to be applied in the rest of the airport airside, and then to be extended to the whole airport within a generation.(this would include cars, taxis, buses, coaches and commercial vehicles unless they used non-polluting propulsion and thus promote the use of public transport)
• the financing of any expansion in the airport is the sole responsibility of the airport itself(the government will only finance complementary infrastructure outside the airport boundary where necessary - this will encourage the airport to make the investment without expensive embellishments)
• Apply an agreement about the alternating use of the north and south runways for take-offs and landings so as to provide relief to local residents if considered necessary/advisable.
• Start planning and programming the connection by new railway line to Heathrow, and the extension from Gatwick to Ashford so as to be able to provide direct rail services to mainland Europe, to be completed by 2030 (insofar as these works affect the airport).  

To build an additional runway at each of the two principal London airports these points/conditions must be included. If that is done then the needs of the business lobby can be squared with the worries/doubts of the environmental lobby to enable construction to commence.

Building at both airports ensures competition is maintained between the two.

 

 

This blogger has written extensively on the subject of additional runways in South East England. Be it sufficient to say that just two articles are there to understand the problems in detail 
 Heathrow´s 3rd runway - how to focus                      23-02-2012
 Heathrow and/or Gatwick - Let´s focus more             01-02-2015

Heathrow and/or Gatwick - Let´s focus more

After having written a piece called "Heathrow´s 3rd runway - how to focus" in February 2012, it is about time to bring things up to date.

.....  Of course, you can look at these things from a very narrow perspective, or if you prefer you can see a bigger picture which is more illuminating.

The prestigious CAPA Centre for Aviation brings out analysises on a regular basis about different aspects of the airline industry.
In the last year alone, on 19th May 2014 it produced a study on the progress of the arguments in favour of one or another option for new runways titled, "London’s Heathrow and Gatwick airports commence the next phase of Davies Commission runway battle."
On 10th September 2014 this was followed up by another article titled,"Thames Estuary Airport dropped: a milestone reached in the eternal debate on UK airport capacity."

Some specialised periodicals have been publishing articles about the runway expansion debate. Here is a selection from September 2014 to January 2015. Each headline itself  tells a distinct story though each has its own link so that it can be read in its entirety. 


Buying Business Travel:
29th August 2014,         "Heathrow urges Boris to support bid for expansion"
1st September 2014,     "Boris attacks ‘barbaric’ Heathrow third runway plan"
2nd September 2014     " 'Boris Island' airport plan rejected"
9th September 2014,     "Majority of MPs back Heathrow expansion"
19th September 2014,   "Gatwick airport gains public support for expansion"
2nd October 2014,        "Birmingham airport backs Gatwick bid for second runway"
8th October 2014,         "Business leaders criticise Lib Dems for airport expansion stance" 
3rd November 2014,      "Willie Walsh: ‘No business case’ for second runway at Gatwick"
7th November 2014,      "Heathrow warns of losing top airport status" 
11th November 2014,    "Heathrow and Gatwick plans to cost billions more than forecast"
11th November 2014,    "Public back airport expansion in south east, ABTA study finds"
20th November 2014,    "Gatwick warns of 'capacity crunch' after record results" 
1st December 2014,     "Heathrow to extend property compensation scheme"
1st December 2014,     "Regional airport chiefs back Heathrow expansion"
3rd December 2014,     "Heathrow CEO ‘sorry’ over runway promise"
20th January 2015,       "County council opposes second runway at Gatwick"

travelweekly
1st September 2014,     "Address UK air capacity 'ticking time bomb', says CBI"
2nd September 2014,    " Public urged to speak out on airport expansion" 
22nd September 2014,  "Small businesses 'back expansion of Gatwick' "
30th September 2014,   "Osborne hints at speedy decision on airport capacity"
3rd October 2014,         "Gatwick pushes case for second runway at regional roadshows"
27th October2014,        "Branson accuses politicians of being 'cowardly' over Heathrow"
28th October 2014,       "British business urges backing for Heathrow expansion"
3rd November 2014,      "Potential Conservative party split emerges over Heathrow expansion"
3rd November 2014,      "Environment as important as economic impact of airport expansion, finds YouGov poll"
12th January 2015,       "Heathrow and Gatwick claim record performance in 2014"
19th January 2015,       "Gatwick unveils 'low-risk' two-runway plan"
29th January 2015,       "Abta calls for new runways at both Gatwick and Heathrow"

Flight Global.
21st September 2014,   "Gatwick eyes point-to-point routes for long-haul growth" 

Airwise/Reuters
21st January 2015,        "UK Needs Quick Decision On New London Runway"


This blogger thinks it unnecessary to comment on each article. Readers can absorb what is written and come to their own conclusions. Sufficient it is to say that each person, grouping, poltical party or administrative area is pushing its own agenda for its own reasons. They do not necessarily reflect this blogger´s.
The most significant point to note is that mentioned on 12th January about an increase in traffic at both Heathrow (to 73.4 million passengers - up 1.4%) and Gatwick (to 38 million passengers - up 7.6% ) in 2014 compared to 2013. The problem about the need for expansion of capacity will not go away.



Let us look at some truths....

1-There is a big demand for more runway capacity in the South East of England.
2-More runway movements mean more flights into one, two or more, or all the airports in the South East region. Denying that is ignoring the evident. There is a demand and it has to be satisfied one way or another.
3-There are arguments both in favor and against the expansion of one airport or another.
4-The preferences for increasing the capacity of one airport or another is, many times, the ability of the politicians to convince people to their way of thinking. 
5-More runway capacity means more flights, which mean more point-to-point or transfer passengers, which mean more economic benefit for the regions, the airports and the principal players at the airports. The more flights, the more likely the increase in connections to various destinations.
6-the country as a whole benefits, not just the South East region.
7-If no new runways are to be built at Heathrow or Gatwick then a new site has to be chosen. This means Luton or Stansted. Luton is the better situated airport but presents difficulties in construction - but nothing like an Estuary airport. Stansted would be the prefered solution for many in government or the Civil Service - as it has been since the early 1970s. However, with respect to the rest of the country it is out in the boondocks, difficult to reach and needing an excessive investment in infrastructure. Most of this infrastructure already exists at/to Luton.
8-Any such commitment to a "new site" implies a commitment to a new 4 runway airport - something which is not necessary with the expansion of both Heathrow and Gatwick.  
9-The choice of Luton as a new 4 runway airport could well mean the reduction, or even closure of Stansted. The choice of Stansted would well mean the closure of Southend and possibily Luton. Both choices mean a reduction in alternatives.

Let us look at some of the non-truths....

1- Limiting the number of flights at Heathrow or Gatwick airports does not mean a total reduction in flights in a region.
2-Can the demand for more flights be satisfied by replacing Heathrow flights with Stansted ones, or Gatwick flights with Luton ones? This is just wishful thinking.
3-Many people like to think that the unused capacity at regional airports can be used to satisfy demand.
In certain instances this might well be the case. However, it is not true in most cases. I do not hide behind the decision of British Airways(BA) to pull out of UK regional airports to justify the fact that there is no demand into and from the regions to warrant onward flows to long distance destinations. I honestly think that there could be a demand but BA is not interested. That then becomes a self serving argument - no in-put therefore, no out-put,  no in-connecting services therefore no outgoing services to North America or Asia --- even if the demand had been shown to exist  before.
4)- Any meaningful descision can be put off/delayed  to another Parliament.That is just sweeping the problem under the mat.
5)- Luton cannot be developed as a 4 runway airport. This is false since there is sufficient space between Luton and Harpenden to fit in 4 parallel independent runways which would not affect either town with overflying.The ground itself needs leveling but the work itself is far less than any envisaged on the construction of an Estuary airport.



From this point we can develop the argument to include many differing opinions.

This blogger has expounded on this issue before as stated so it is not necessary to repeat all the same arguments in detail.

Considering one aspect, extending Heathrow´s runways westwards towards the M25 can help in the issue of noise reduction.The northern runway can be extended 900 meters towards the M25 while the southern runway can be extended 1300 meters.
This means that noise pollution over West london can be mitigated to some extent since the aircraft can be landed that much further down each runway so eleviating the noise problem over extensive areas of West London.
Add to that the possibility of increasing the angle of descent for the landing aircraft then the height at which the aircraft fly into Heathrow (or Gatwick) can be increased to a fair tranch over the built up areas - the higher the approach the lower the noise. 

Extending the runways further west over the M25 motorway and even over the reservoirs west of the motorway is a possiblity but would be ridiculously expensive and unnecessary.

If measures can be taken to extend the runways westwards towards the M25 thus enabling aircraft to land further along each runway then the noise issue can be mitigated.
However, combine that with the improvement of aircraft and engine design (which has been evident over the past decades) then there can be a real reduction in noise pollution.
If then you go the one step further to legislate that ALL aircraft entering or leaving from Heathrow (or Gatwick for that matter) have maximum permitted noise levels, then you can ensure that the reduction in noise levels over West London (or Crawley in the case of Gatwick) is real and substantial.

The fuel pollution, i.e. CO2 or other toxic emissions, is limited by improvement in airline and engine technology. Over the years the emissions have been reduced to much lower levels so as to be more acceptable. A Boeing 787 does not have the same emission levels as a B767 or B757. An Airbus A380 or A350 does not have the same level of emissions as a B747-400 or an A340. These new aircraft provide a lower level of noise and pollution not seen before.
Quite frankly, it is really ridiculous to say that the effects of aircraft movements over any given area are the same in 2015 as in 1985 or will be in 2030. That is an ostrich approach.

This blogger believes that a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick can both be built to solve the shortage of runways in the South East of England. They both would mean years of investment but not from public money.

They should be permitted on the basis of a reduction in aircraft noise, measurable, verifiable and, if necessary, sanctionable for excesses. The same criteria would apply for toxic emissions. The fact that the aircraft landing and taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick had to conform to a limit of 55-57 decibels, or whatever were decided, together with engine emissions of xxxCO2, could make the constructuion of an extra runway at each airport viable.

Applying these reductions for all operations over two years gives time for the airlines to adapt (previously I said a generation but now I reduce the time limit because the roll out of the new aircraft will be faster than originally thought  -  so in effect since the initial idea was proposed until its implication a generation will almost have past). Maybe the British airlines should lead the way with European, American, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern airlines following. Then the "poor neighbours" could follow.

These rules applied to Heathrow and Gatwick would mean a big change in flying patterns. Applying them later to Luton and Stansted would help redistribute the traffic into/out of London.

Other considerations:
A third runway at Heathrow does mean a new terminal. This would be situated over the road and rail tunnel out from the terminals 2 and 3. It might even be called Terminal 1(previously I called it Terminal 6) to replace the previous terminal which is due to be taken down. Then it would have a direct connection to the Heathrow Express services and the Crossrail services (as they will then be) to the rest of the airport and into central London.

Having a terminal north of the Bath Road does not mean there would be any necessity for aircraft to cross over the northern runway to gain access to any terminal. The best solution would be for all flights out of the (new) terminal one to connect to the islands and near connections. By this I mean Ireland and all the islands of Great Britain, plus others such as The Faroes, Iceland, Malta and even the Benelux countries, without excluding others. I mean all flights so that no airline or alliance is affected negatively.
That way BA (oneworld), Brussels Airlines(Star Alliance) and KLM(Skyteam) would be equally affected.
This is what was suggested in the previous article in February 2012.





News which is both good and worrying:
These headlines link to articles about all of London´s main airports and the increase in passengers year on year at each. Such is the reflection of an improving economy.
"Stansted welcomes over two million more passengers in 2014"  (Air Transport News 12-1-15)
"Record passenger numbers for London Luton Airport in 2014" (Air Transport News 8-1-15)
"Record year at London City Airport a sign of confidence" (Air Transport News 8-1-15)
 "Heathrow traffic and business commentary December 2014" (Air Transport News 12-1-15)

London Gatwick Airport: Facts and Stats



All well and good, but the worrying part is the delay in deciding on runway expansion in the south-east. This information surely illustrates the need to take decisions now and not after the next election. We are a victim of our own success.

We do not want any fudging. Let the government lay down (strict) conditions for runway building, then let both Heathrow and Gatwick get on with the job of building the extra runways at both airports with their own funding.
Not one but two runways are going to be needed by mid century. Cannot we anticipate demand for once?

Gatwick´s second runway option.



The analysis provided by the airline site anna.aero on 21st January 2015, provides some interesting comparative information about both Heathrow and Gatwick.

Let me quote the complete concluding paragraph....
"....It’s pretty obvious to anyone that both airports are clearly running close to maximum capacity and both are highly vulnerable to disruption (such as sudden bad weather or an operational emergency). An additional runway at both airports would considerably help with reliability as well as creating opportunities for significant traffic growth, and benefits to the UK economy of somewhere around a whopping £300 billion ($500 billion). To get this figure we combined the Airport Commission’s estimates of the economic benefit of each runway – a total exceeding £340 billion – and ‘slightly’ discounted the total to account for overlaps – in truth nobody knows what the actual figures are, but it is safe to say the benefits would be an absurdly huge boost to the UK economy and competitiveness, were any political party able to explain it to the electorate."

This blogger supports this view wholeheartedly.

Now on 3rd february 2015 the last chance to provide evidence for consultation presents itself..
To join the debate and tell the Airports Commission your feelings visit:
www. smartsurvey.co.uk/s/134578HXHDU.

Is London as a transport hub holding us back? - The Solutions

The London Transport Hub is a reality with all its advantages and disadvantages. The problem is how far can it go on doing the same? Are there not physical limits to expansion especially when the conurbation is growing by thousands of persons per year?

I begin this second part by repeating the same questions as I finished the first.
Measures are being taken but are they enough? 
What is being done?
What can be done? 
Are there alternatives?


WHAT IS BEING DONE:
Quite frankly a lot is being done.

THAMESLINK:  The first attempt in modern times to redistribute the traffic flows so that the terminal stations and the metropolitan transport system did not become clogged up was with the reopening of the cross Thames link from Kings Cross/ St.Pancras to Farringdon then Blackfriars to the three rail system south  of the Thames. This originally opened in January 1866 and continued in use until  the end of the 1960s, though not all the time for passenger traffic. From 1988 the tracks were relaid and opened to north-south passenger traffic yet again.

Subsequently, this permitted a renewed connection between north and south of theThames which became very successful. This led to the Thameslink 2000 project which meant connecting lines from the north to the south of the Thames so  as to provide greater connectivity. The star example is the service from Bedford to Brighton (passing Gatwick and Luton airports).

Such was the case that the whole north-south connection was looked at. Now the whole question of franchises both north and south of the Thames is being modified.  The greatest example of this is the proposal from the DfT to merge the present Thameslink services with the Southern(South Central) and Great Northern  franchises.The new combined franchise would start from September 2014.

As can be seen at the end (annex F) of that DfT document the proposed traffic pattern includes north- south Thames´ services as well as those which terminate at Victoria, London Bridge and Kings Cross and Moorgate.This is a reversal of the previous policy whereby Thameslink was a cross river operator and the said terminals were devoted to a specific operator. Will not the same problems as before arise again to make the desirability of reducing the number of operators at a station a necessity? 
http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/

CROSSRAIL:The next attempt to aleviate the flows of passengers into London was the Crossrail scheme. This envisaged a cross conurbation rail service from (now) Reading and Heathrow (in the West), to Shenfield and Abbey Wood (in the East). 
In gross terms this service would take the surburban Great Western rail services from Paddington together with the Heathrow Connect services and connect them to the surburban rail services of Great Eastern from Liverpool Street to Shenfield (Essex) while also providing an extension to Abbey Wood in Kent to connect to South Eastern services.

The net result of this line would be to provide greater access to Central London from the surburbs thus freeing up Underground places from the main line termini, while also freeing up platform space at these termini to facilitate more long distances inter-city rail services. The estimates are that this new Crossrail service will increase London´s transport capacity by 10% - a substantial figure.

Crossrail (and Thameslink) are planned to extract numbers from the central Underground areas but will provoke problems of their own. The latest study from Arup(20 January 2014) The passenger numbers expected to embark/disembark at the central stations of Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon have increased from the  estimate made in 2004 of 185 million per annum to a revised figure now for 2026 of 250 million per annum - a massive increase of 35%.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/

 

TUBE IMPROVEMENT:
Another area where Transport for London (TfL) - the governing body for all London transport - decided major improvements could be made was to make up for the lack of investment in the capital´s transport system - particularly the Undergound (Tube) - over many decades.
The focus has been on three main areas:
--- Upgrade the antiquated signalling system:  this ensures greater reliabilty and thus fewer breakdowns - also it permits a shorter time limit between trains and thus increases the frequency per hour of the number of trains, therefore increasing capacity.
--- Increase in the length of trains (where possible) thus increasing capacity.
--- improve the configuration of the trains so that they can accelerate and decelerate more quickly, while also eliminating the barriers between carriages thus increasing the capacity (walk-through carriages).
Bettering the travel experience with improved facilities, especially for the less mobile,and safety are also part of the process.
These measures require time to be put in place but TfL is undertaking the process. The improvement will be substantial again but the question is how far can these measures solve the problems. 
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/tube-improvement?intcmp=11481

With the expected increase in population (at 200+ persons per day) in the capital and the South East in general there will be a limit to how much the present system can be improved (the law of diminishing returns). But where is the limit?


WHAT CAN BE DONE:

OTHER MEASURES TO BE TAKEN:

Greater Anglia: While the above mentioned improvements are going on TfL and National Rail are proposing additional solutions. 
Firstly, London´s Mayor, Boris Johnson wants to include all rail services within the London boundaries (basically inside the M25 circular motorway) into the remit of TfL. The benefits of this move are not clear - they seem to be more a case of empire building by Boris.


The first step he has achieved is to ensure that the responsibility for the Greater Anglia commuter services from Liverpool Street to Chingford, Enfield Town and Cheshunt  pass to TfL. They might well be branded Overground though these services are fed by overhead electric lines and not the third rail, as the other Overground services are. The stations will be upgraded to TfL standards. If the results achieved by Overground, with improved facilities and safety measures, can be used as a model then the usage of these services will increase substantially.

It should be mentioned here that that the original idea of the Overground scheme was to join

together all the bits and pieces of the British Rail system round Greater London which were not connected. This lead to the idea of connecting them as a circular rail system to connect the middle and outer surburbs on Greater London. It proved successful and so the Mayor, Boris Johnson, has been encouraged to expand it. The motivational idea was "Connectivity" (which this blogger supports wholeheartedly)as well as "capacity". Connecting the outer limits of the transport system means fewer numbers of passengers have to travel through the centre but use the outer connections - something to be encouraged. 




Crossrail 2:The second step is more in the long-term. Crossrail 2, used initially as a working title, is a proposal to run rail services from South West London out to the North East. It was

originally called the Chelsea-Hackney (Chelney) line as a new line of the Underground. 
It has lately been pushed by a grouping of businessmen and politicians called London First led by the ex-transport minister Lord Adonis. The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has taken the idea on board fully.
 
There are two options being studied at the moment. (a) Metro option: this would be a LUL line from Wimbledon  through Kings Road Chelsea to Victoria then Euston/Kings Cross and on to Alexandra Palace (with other intermediate stops).  
(b) Regional option: this would run further south and further north, connecting some South West Trains´ services from Shepperton, Hampton Court and Chessington South(or even elsewhere) to the line at Wimbledon while at the northern end the lines to be connected could be the aforementioned Greater Anglia lines to Chingford, Enfield Town and Cheshunt (or others).
The real problem would be the two differing electric systems used (a) the third rail 750 DC used on the commuter network south of the Thames while north of the river (b) the overhead gantry system of 25Kv AC is used. This has already been solved with the Thameslink network both north and south so it is not insuperable - expensive it is, but workable.
The whole process is at an early stage so nothing definite has been decided yet.


LUL extensions:  There are some tweaks to the system which have already been approved. One involves the long waited for extension of the Metropolitan Line from Croxley to Watford Junction. Another is the approved Northern Line extension from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea.

In fact this blogger has already set out his ideas for improvements to the rail systems in London in his blog of 25 May 2013 titled "Getting the lines crossed in London - Crossrail 1 & 2 & other lines.
I repeat some of them here.
(a) - the separation of the Charing Cross and City branches of the Northern Line (LUL) into two separate lines, one going to Battersea and the other to Morden. 
(b) Extension of the Northern Line from Morden to Morden South(to connect with the National Rail line).
(c) - better use of the Waterloo and City Line (extensions to Clapham Junction and Stratford?? - with intermediate stops)
(d) - Hammersmith & City Line extension to Barnes (to connect to South West trains)
(e) - Metropolitan Lines extended throughout the day through central London from Baker St.
(f) - The extension of the Northern Line branch from Mill Hill East to Mill Hill Broadway, Edgware and Stanmore ( to connect to the other lines at those stations thus providing better connections across the suburbs).
All of these mean extensions of existing lines which are not particularly complicated.

However, the following ideas mean using part of the south Thames rail network to add to the extensions.
(g)- extension of the Bakerloo Line to other areas south of the Thames where there are large gaps in the commuter network. Onwards to Peckham Rye (with intermediate new stops)and Lewisham with one set continuing on the circular lines through Woolwich Arsenal, Slade Green and Eltham (and viceversa). The other part would go along the circular lines through Hither Green, Crayford, Bexleyheath and Eltham (and vice versa), to return through Lewisham to Peckam Rye etc.
(h) - The Piccadilly Line split at Holborn so that the Cockfosters branch can be extended to Aldwych, Temple and areas south of the Thames where the Undergound is under-represented. Down to the Elephant & Castle, and on to the Sutton, Wimbledon loop on one side while to Caterham and Tattenham Corner on the other.
(j)The Heathrow and Uxbridge Piccadilly branches would continue from Holborn out north-eastwards(serving areas of Hackney and the Chingford Line, and perhaps taking over parts of the Central Line at the end).
That way a sizeable part of the commuter network would be brought into the LUL system giving the Underground a greater visibility south of the Thames. A net result could be aleviating the pressure on the platforms at Victoria, Charing Cross, Blackfriars, London Bridge and Cannon St.



OVERGROUND: One service which is crying out for modification is the Overground line from Watford Junction to Euston. The subtraction of this line from Euston would free up  platforms for other badly needed services. The solution is simple. From South Hampstead the line can divert to Camden Road along a preexisting track and then continue to Highbury & Islington. Here it would connect to the Overground service to run to New Cross. At present the line finishes there on its easterly branch. However, the service can be extended to Lewisham and Hayes, and to Lewisham, Grove Park and Bromley North. These would result in being two extensions from New Cross, possibly saving platform space at the Cannon St. and/or Charing Cross termini.

AIRPORT EXPRESS SERVICES:The  Heathrow Express service could combine with the Stansted Express service to run on Crossrail tracks through Central London to link the two airports as a joint Heathrow-Stansted Express (thus freeing up platforms at Paddington and Liverpool St.). They would run to Stratford and then on to Stansted. There would be no need for a large number of passengers to change at Paddington and Liverpool St. thus freeing up LUL seats. Both services run at a frequency of 4 trains per hour.

REGIONAL SERVICES:  I also repeat the idea of combining the regional services from Milton Keynes (London Midland) and the Chiltern Line(from Aylesbury and High Wycombe) to those of C2C to Southend.The services running into Fenchurch St. along the Tilbury Line operated by C2C are a prime candidate. They are suburban and regional commuter lines with no connection to any other line or terminus (except for the occasional train running into Liverpool St.). The terminus occupies a prime site of real estate in the City of London. The station site could be sold while keeping the right to have access to the line at a station underground in the same place.

A tunnel would be excavated from Fenchurch St. to run under Central London with stops at Cannon St., Blackfriars, Aldwich(reopened), Tottenham Court Rd., New Cavendish St. (Portland Place)(a new station), Marylebone/Baker St. (connected to both). The tunnel would continue northwards with one branch passing through Maida Vale to emerge at Queens Park and joining the WCML to travel through Willesden Junction incorporating most or all of the London Midland services to Milton Keynes. Thus platforms would be freed up at Euston.

The second section of the tunnel would go directly northwards from Marlebone/Baker St. passing under South Hampstead and continuing to emerge at West Hampstead. The services would continue along the Chiltern Line through Wembley Park and Wembley Stadium on to Aylesbury and Aylesbury Vale Parkway via Amersham and High Wycombe respectively. These surburban and near regional lines would thus be diverted on to another Crossrail Line through London freeing up platform space at Marylebone station. 

The work needed to be done on these lines would be the electrification of these surburban Chiltern sections. That however, could be part of a general electrification of the Chiltern Line to Birmingham and Oxford which surely will be done in the mid-term. Both the C2C and the London Midland services use overhead power lines at 25Kv AC so the systems are compatible.

Cutting the cost of HS2:

Lords Bradshaw and Berkeley have been active in the House of Lords with different proposals to reduce the cost of the new High speed line HS2 and improve the connectivity of the regional WCML services into and through London.
"Peers and HS2 officials to discuss alternative ‘Euston Cross’ plan" (22-4-13 Rail Technology Magazine)
They have also proposed, quite sensibly in my opinion, dropping the HS1 - HS2 connection along the North London line.
"Peers put forward suggestions on London end of HS2" (7-3-14 Rail Technology Magazine)
This blogger welcomes the decision of the government to scrap the HS1 - HS2 connection.
"Government to scrap HS2 link with HS1" (25-3-14 Rail Technology Magazine)
The reasons given, though valid, are a bit vague - ".....its impact on freight, passengers and the community in Camden”.

The three articles are detailed so I will not go into them here. However, the main reason not mentioned for the cancellation of the HS1 - HS2 link is that  it is logistically a nightmare and thus is not viable. Great Britain is outside the Schengen agreement so it maintains its Border controls on all incomers to the country whether thay be from the European Union or elsewhere. this means that if HS trains were run from the provinces to mainland Europe then the passengers would (a) have to disembark at some point to pass Border controls thus eliminating the advantage of through HS services or (b) pass Border controls at the embarkation stations and be isolated from travellers not going to mainland Europe. This is precisely the problem facing Eurostar services being extended from Brussels to Amsterdam and Cologne(with intermediate stops). It is simpler, cheaper and much less of a headache to start all HS European(Eurostar or other) trains at St.Pancras. Yes, but not all.


Another idea floated was by the pressure group Greengauge 21  called 

(c) Greengauge 21 2014

"HS1 – HS2 connection:A way forward"(1-4-14)
It is an interesting but flawed document to read. It contains, for example, a detailed explanation of why direct HS2 services to Mainland Europe are so difficult to organise.
However, it reflects the ideas of its promoters when it should abandon some concepts about which Greengauge 21 itself has come to some clear conclusions. For example, it accepts the necessity of abandoning the HS1-HS2 connection through Camden then goes on to say that that is the way to connect services northwest to those southeast of the capital.
There is a shorter version of the same in "Rail Technology Magazine" (2-4-14) 
"Alternative HS1-HS2 link proposed"



  
OTHER, PERHAPS, MORE IMPORTANT IDEAS OUTSIDE LONDON:

What has to be looked at seriously, which has not been done as yet, are the possibilities of diverting traffic away from the centre of London completely. By this I do not mean local(London) or regional traffic which has already been mentioned.

SUGGESTION: Having said that there could be a solution. This would mean bypassing London with new different services.

Ideas have been floated about rail connections from (a)Reading to Heathrow and from (b) Heathrow to Gatwick. 
Connection (a) has now been approved."Heathrow rail link plan unveiled by Network Rail" (4-2-14 BBC News)
Connection (b) was mooted under the title "Heathwick" - to connect the terminals at both airports with a fast rail link so that they could work as one. This was plainly "pie in the sky" as it was proposed and has died its death.
However, this blogger did propose a combination of both. 
Reading - Heathrow Rail Connection (6-10-11) 
Heathrow - Gatwick Rail Link (11-10-11)

It takes no big mental effort to see that a connection from Gatwick airport to Ashford and into the Channel Tunnel is the next step. That would mean Reading, Heathrow and Gatwick would be interconnected and able to offer ongoing services - some to Continental Europe and others as regional services to northeast Kent. 
At Reading passengers would arrive from the Midlands, the west, South Wales and the South West, for airport and regional services without going through London.
At the airports passengers would not only be able to reach regional destinations without going through Central London, but also those ongoing to near European destinations such as Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Cologne could take pressure off the shorter European flights and perhaps reduce demand on them. Thus expansion at the airports would be controlled to a certain extent.   
To achieve this Eurostar and other international services could start at Reading.
Here dedicated platforms and Border controls could be provided  on trains that run through Heathrow (T5, Central & T4), on to Gatwick airport, then to Ashford and through the Channel Tunnel to Paris and Brussels, all on dedicated international trains. This is an idea I have floated before.


Both the international services and the regional services would eliminate the need to travel into Central London to reach the TWO major airports.This is a "win, win" situation: (a) alternatives to ongoing flights to Europe from the two airports at distances where rail is very competitive with air travel, and (b) greater connectivity (thus capacity) between the two major airports in the country to enable more rapid interconnection,  while(c)better connectivity for travellers, tourists, commuters and others who will not need to travel through Central London thus aleviating the TfL system.

This blogger has expounded these ideas before such as:
Long-haul rail terminals under Heathrow and Gatwick.(4-5-12)

It takes no great effort of the imagination to see the possibility of regional services over this line, which I call SHSL (Southern High Speed Line), from further afield. These places could be Birmingham and Oxford, Bath and Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea, and elsewhere. The possibilities opened up are numerable.



FREIGHT:
This has always been the poor relation of rail services because it does not transport people - commuters, businessmen/women, tourists, sports fans or whoever - only goods.

It has to be accepted that London is not a seaport any longer. The port facilities are further down towards the end of the Thames Estuary and even elsewhere. Whether the rail (or road) transport is going to Tilbury, Felixstowe, Dover or Southampton the principle should be accepted that none of these imports/exports should go through London unless they are destined to/from London itself. That is of vital importance to take rail traffic off London´s lines and lorries off its roads - and especially the M25.


Line initiatives for freight, such as the Southampton-Basingstoke-Reading line(and on to Nuneaton), and the Felixstowe-Nuneaton line are to be welcomed. but they are not enough. serious thought should go into the idea of taking lorries off the roads so that they avoid London and other cities and towns as much as possible.  

This blogger´s ideas on avoiding central London were expounded in more detail through the two following links. 
"Fast Trax 2 - The case for a southern high speed alternative (SHSL)" (24-2-10)
"Who wants the Irish....?"(15-5-12)

Those who have read the last link will realise that it refers to the transport of freight(more than passengers) between continental Europe and the Republic of Ireland through England and Wales. However, both go on to explain how the idea could be extended to regional pick up points for freight traffic near Bristol and near Birmingham. All of these would have the double benefit of diverting traffic from London, and taking lorries off the roads further from the Channel tunnel so that fewer fumes are emitted into our air.









What will it take to achieve all this? 
It needs the vision to see the future benetfits, the political will to put ideas into action and the economic commitment to fund a rolling programme to fulfill it. Money should be spent on beneficial projects to the greater good for the greater number. It does not necessarily have to make an economic case, a social one might well be sufficient. However, such action will always be better than grand vainglorious projects which become self seeking in the end in a prison of political commitment and face saving.