Business airlines

That "La Compagnie" is starting business only flights from London to New York (Newark) as reported in Business Traveller (3-2-15) can only be welcomed. The business traveller might well ask why he/she cannot get that bit extra exclusivity when paying that (large) extra on a trip.

 "La Compagnie launches all-business London-New York flights" (Buying Business Travel 3-2-15)

 "French airline offers 'business class at Ryanair prices' as it slashes £1,000 off its flights from London to New York"   (Mailonline 4-2-15)
 
 "French firm starts 'budget business' class flights from London to New York" (London Evening Standard 4-2-15)

The previously failed experiences of "Eos, Silverjet, and Maxjet" makes one think that the concept was wrong. However, this begs the question. Those airlines tried to survive, unsuccessfully, during the biggest economic downturn in 80 years.

On the other hand British Airways, firstly, founded "Open Skies" and then took over "L´Avion" to fly from Paris Orly to New York. This has proved an moderate success. It changed its name unnecessarily  and then floundered to find the product it wants to present - which is still the case.

Obviously, the founders of "L´Avion" were bought out with the condition of not setting up any sort of competition for a certain period. That period will have finished since now, of the top six executives in La Compagnie four have previously worked in L ´Avion and/or Open Skies

Now we have the founders of the original idea, "L´Avion" setting up "La Compagnie". The new company starts flying Paris (CDG) to New York in July 2014. However, such is the confidence by them, and in them by their backers that it now proposes to fly London (Luton) to New York from late April.The frequency will be three times weekly, rising to six times weekly in June and eventually daily by the end of the year.

"Open Skies" still operates from Paris Orly to New York (JFK and Newark) and has not developed since then despite markets existing in Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva and maybe even in Nice(without thinking about other countries or languages).
It flies B757-200s in two different configurations: a) 114 seats  with 20 Biz Bed(business class seats), 28 Prem Plus (premium economy), and 66 Eco (economy seats), while the second option b) offers 112 seats with 20 Biz Bed, 20 Biz Seat and 72 Eco seats.




To be fair to BA, it has had to accept that its all business flights from London City to New York are not part of the same subsidiary, that operates "Open Skies". This was due to union oposition. As a result, however, both "Open Skies" and the operation from London City operate separately.  This second option was originally operated from London City from 2012 by British Airways (BA) Limited under the brand name Club World London City. However, from 2015 The Club World London City services are being returned to being operated directly by British Airways PLC.


The aircraft leaving London City cannot take on all the fuel necessary to make the transatlantic leap all in one go so provides a stopover on the outward flight at Shannon. This has given them the chance for the passengers to pass througn US Border Controls in Ireland so saving that time on arrival - no small benefit. They, therefore, arrive as domestic passengers and so save a lot of time and avoid the hassle which could be a couple of hours otherwise.The problem of loading weight for the return flight does not exist so the flight is direct New York JFK to London City.
The aircraft used is an  A318 in a 32 seat all business class configuration.



However, the choice of airport for London by La Compagnie makes for thinking. Considering that Heathrow is out of the question (flight slot availability and cost), and Gatwick (the same), then we are left with Stansted and Luton. Stansted might well be the more attractive site due to the supposed higher purchasing power of the potential passengers in the region, but one has to admit that it is stuck out on a limb (near Cambridge - only good if that is your destination). Luton, on the other hand, is well connected by road and rail to London, the Midlands and the North, so the immediate area for captive passengers is not so important. The airport itself might be considered second rate ( it is mostly used for holiday {bucket and spade} flights) but that would be irrelevant if the services provided by the airline on the ground were up to scratch.

However, the airport experience can depend on the airline if it so wishes. The pre-takeoff and post-landing experience are paramount.  A good lounge to relax in, a quick passage into the departure lounge and attention to all sorts of detail can make the experience worthwhile despite Luton not being focused on business passengers.

The ultimate question is if "La Compagnie"has learned the lessons of previous experiences and can apply them  -  I would think them capable of doing so.

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

The number of other airlines flying all business, or specially configured aircraft with a lower density of seating than most normal flights, is small.
What this blogger has found  is the following  -  at least  in /into Europe

Qatar Airways flies (to Europe) Doha - Heathrow  daily with an A319 in a 40 seat all business class configuration. A second A319 becomes available from 17-2-2015. It flies other routes and offers charter and contract hiring

(c) Lars Steffens

 Privat Air is based in Geneva and  does charter and contract flying. At present it is flying for...
SAS from Stavanger(Norway)  to Houston(Texas)  6 times weekly using a B737 in a 44 seat all business class configuration.
Lufthansa from Frankfurt to Dammam (Saudi Arabia) 3 times weekly and,
on a triangular route from Frankfurt to Pune(India) then to Bucharest and back to Frankfurt 4 times weekly. On both routes a BBJ2 (which is a modified Boeing 737) 
in a configuration of 32 business seats and 60 economy seats. 
ECAir (Equatorial Congo Airlines)based in Brazzaville(the Republic of the Congo).Here Privat Air has operated as the national airline of the country providing domestic and regional routes. Two intercontinental routes were offered from Brazzaville to Paris (4/6 times weekly) and Dubai (3 times weekly) using a B757-200 with 16 business seats and 132 economy seats. Thus it was not strictly an all business airline.


From what we have found there seems to be a very limited "ALL EXCLUSIVE BUSINESS SERVICE" on flights to/from Europe.  The European airlines seem to be concentrating their efforts on the regular long-haul services to the Americas and Asia/Africa - meaning regular flights with good services onboard for the  well-to-do while providing connectivity for the masses from point to point. This is a philosophy whereby the "economy" passengers pay for the basics of the flight while the "business" and "first" classes provide the cream - the profits. 

How this sort of service will develop in the future nobody knows. It is up to "La Compagnie" to show us what can be done. If it fails, that is is the end of all exclusive business flights. If it succeeds then the possibilities are endless. Let us wait and see.

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 Problem

The question can be put another way. Is London a bottleneck?

Whether it be road, rail or air transport the United Kingdom´s capital city has its limits to absorb the influx of all the transport demands made on it.
 

The period of rapid growth in transport infrastructure in Great Britain was in the nineteenth century with the construction of the railways. All of the different companies wanted to have a terminus in or near the centre of the capital. That leaves us with a legacy without comparison. Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, St.Pancras, Kings Cross, Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, London Bridge, Cannon Street, Blackfriars, Waterloo, Charing Cross and Victoria - 14 mainline rail termini, without mentioning those that have disappeared such as Broad Street.

Some were even a terminus for more than one rail company such as Victoria(the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway, with the London Chatham & Dover Railway),and London Bridge (the London & Greenwich Railway, shortly followed by the London & Croydon Railway, The London & Brighton Railway and the South Eastern Railway - the Croydon and Brighton companies merged in 1846 to form the London Brighton & South Coast Railway).

This is a legacy unrepeated anywhere in the world. In Paris there are far fewer termini while other capital cities have through stations and not termini. Historically this is very interesting but for passenger flows to final destinations it makes movements very awkward. People still had to walk, ride(in Hanson cabs) or bus it to their destinations or between termini.

Thus one of the enabling factors was created to stimulate the need for an inner city transport system which became the Underground(LUL). The very first line was to connect Paddington in the west to the City of London past the northern termini, where possible.

The beginnings of what was to become the London Underground system - in December 1870, just 7 years after the opening of the first line from Paddington to Farringdon Street.                                (c) Transport for London

This was later completed by connecting the southern termini on the north bank of the Thames, and eventually rounded to make the Circle Line. From that the Metropolitan and District lines developed and the whole Underground system blossomed to what we now have today. But it has its limits.

 "In the ...  financial year, ended on 31 March 2012, London Underground trains ran 72.4 million kilometres, the highest ever, and carried 1,171 million passengers, a new record."
This figure is obtained without considering the numbers travelling on London Overground services, calculated at over 200.000 daily, nor those passengers on the Dockland Light Railway(DLR) services, calculated at nearly 200.000 passengers daily which means that the yearly total is about 1,315 million passengers or almost 3.65 million per day.

We can add the figures for London Buses. The 8500 vehicles transported over 2,200million passengers in the period 2010-11. However, we are concentrating on rail services of one sort or another.

Of course, these numbers are extremely high, but then the capital does have massive employment and does attract enormous numbers from outside the metropolitan area. Many have contacts with the government and civil service at Whitehall. Others make use of the financial institutions of the City and Isle of Dogs. Yet others have their work or have to visit the central offices of giant corporations situated in the capital.

London is a tourist attraction in itself. Both foreigners and Britons come to the "Big Smoke" to take advantage of the historic sights, art and culture in general, sports and other entertainment activities, and the shopping facilities for those on a spree. 

The obvious should be said, also, that not everybody goes to the same place/station, and many are moving from one side of the conurbation to another.

However, what most concerns us is when London is a necessary transit point. We wish to travel from Peterborough to Reading, or from Brighton to Colchester. It is then essential to travel through the conurbation even though we do not want to stop to visit there on some occasions. Many long distance passengers are forced to traverse the city when arriving from Mainland Europe - by train on Eurostar. Others fly into any one of the six airports (Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Stansted, Southend and City)  to continue their journeys to other parts of Great Britain, by train, coach, or car. In short London is a travel "Hub" - in from outside to elsewhere outside, and vice versa.

The question then arises, is it necessary for all travel connections to pass through London?  

 

The busiest LUL stations are Victoria and Waterloo with 82.96 million and 88.16 million passengers travelling through them in 2012. Liverpool Street (at 64.23 million) and London Bridge (at 67.16 million) are not far behind. Kings Cross/St.Pancras handled 80.97 million passengers but most of these were long distance passengers while the aforementioned were mostly commuters. On average 40% of passengers through the rail termini travel on by LUL services while 10% go by bus.

                                                            National Rail                                 LUL

                                                             (2013)                                          (2012)

• Cannon Street                              20.223million                               4.09million
• Charing Cross                               38.114m.                                     18.52m.
• Euston                                          36.521m.                                     37.53m.
• Fenchurch Street                         16.937m.                                      22.54m.(Tower Hill)
  
• Kings Cross                                  27.840m.                                      80.97m.(incl.St.Pan.)
  
• Liverpool Street                           58.449m.                                      64.23m.
• London Bridge                             53.351m.                                      67.16m.
• Marylebone                                  13.417m.                                      12.11m. 
•                                                                                       (not incl. Baker St. 27.74m.)
  
• Moorgate                                        7.617m.                                       20.59m
•                                                                              (not incl. Bank & Monum. 47.75m.)      
• Paddington                                   33.709m.                                       46.33m.
• St. Pancras                                   23.046m.                                   (Kings Cross)
  
• Victoria                                         76.163m.                                       82.96m..
• Waterloo                                       94.127m.                                       88.16m.
• Blackfriars                                     12.808m.                                        no data

The following question is how many of these passengers pass from one mode of transport to the other. Is it a simple arithmetic sum or are they all the same passengers? Well neither one nor the other.

The average figures for onward travel from National Rail to Underground are 40%, while 36%  continue their journey on foot, and 9%  interchange with other rail services. These figures, however, differ greatly between the terminals with the extremes as follows.

Cannon Street has 80% of rail passengers continuing on foot while at Paddington, at the other extreme, only 12% continued their journey on foot. As could be expected the use of the Underground at these stations was at opposite extremes as well with 62% of passengers using it at Paddington, while only 9% of passengers at Cannon Street used it for their onward journey.


http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/10786/station_usage_estimates_1213.pdf

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/central_london_rail_termini_report.pdf

(this illustration was kindly provided by "beleben" - "Manner, form and timing" (4-3-2014)
The relevant article and the interesting comments are available here.)

This illustration from H2 shows the capacity problems(with red lines) into London from Milton Keynes, along the WCML(West Coast Mainline), from St.Albans along the MML(Midland Mainline), and from Welwyn Garden City along the ECML(East Coast Mainline). These are major arteries (corridors) into/from the London termini. But yet again what is ignored is the fourth (artery) - The Chiltern Line. This is ignored even though the proposed (High Speed 2) HS2 runs along the same corridor. Obviously taking this line into account could change the whole conception of fast services to the Midlands. It is marginalised. Why is another question but not looked into here.

Take note, in the WCML, of the "red lines" from Rugby to Birmingham, from Birmingham to Wolverhampton,  from Stockport to Manchester, in the approaches into Liverpool and from Carstairs to Glasgow Central. The same "red lines", on the ECML  occur on the approaches to Grantham, on the way from Leeds to York, and most importantly from Darlington to Newcastle and Edinburgh.

All, this means that the problems are not all local to London as the politicians would have us believe. The line capacity problems from Rugby to Euston exist along the WCML, but they are only part of the problem. However, they are not the only ones which they would have us believe to justify HS2.

It should also be noticed that the solution to these "bottleneck" problems can be quite simple. Some can be solved by fourtracking the rail system - as at Welwyn Garden City - while others can be resolved without massive capital investment such as the extension of the Bakerloo Line services from Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford Junction, and the diversion of the Overground services, on the same line, from Euston to the south of the Thames.  

AIRPORTS:
The London airports, Heathrow(72.4m), Gatwick(35.4m), Stansted(17.9m), Luton(9.7m), City(3.4m) and Southend(0.97m), (in descending order of passenger numbers) have their importance. However,to put things into perspective, it should be pointed out that even being the largest airport in Europe, Heathrow, had a throughput of about 72 million passengers in 2013 - that is fewer than those passengers travelling through Victoria station alone. The next largest, Gatwick, was nearly on a par with Euston station. 

From these airports the passengers travelled elsewhere, (a) on other flights (b) on buses and coaches to other parts of Britain (c) by car (mostly to other parts of Britain) and some (d) on train or bus into or through London. Many of these are already counted in the figures mentioned at some of the mainline stations (not all - e.g. Heathrow Express passengers are not counted). Therefore, it would be safe to conclude that the figures do not need to be treated separately.

The problems at airports are others. There are a lack of slots for landings and take-offs, a lack of parking space for aircraft on the ground, some terminals cannot keep up with the growing numbers of passengers, and last but not least many parties believe, this blogger included, that there is a lack of runways in, at least, two airports. However, these problems are dealt with elsewhere. 

WARNING BELLS:
The above figures of use of the National Rail and Underground (not forgetting Overground and DLR) show the systems are widely used with some incredible numbers. They do not mention the extensive use of other stations such as Clapham Junction(23.6m.), Stratford(25.6m) and East Croydon(21m), to mention only three. However, while the improvements are going on the system is creaking at the seams already.

At busy times some LUL stations have limited access and are closed to incoming passengers. This is the case at Victoria, many times, where access is restricted to avoid dangerous overcrowding on the platforms. But Victoria is not the only case as it occurrs at other stations. This will get worse over time. Even now during  (e.g.)August, a month with a lower number of workers entering Central London, but with a higher number of tourists, the tube trains become heavily overcrowded at all times of the day in Central London. How far can this go on?

Measures are being taken but are they enough? 

What is being done? 
What can be done?
Are there alternatives?
In the next blog we will look at some measures being taken and others which could be taken.

Airport Rail Links.

The trips taken by air passengers reflect their need or anxiety to arrive at their destination quickly. Whether we are leaving from or arriving at an airport does not matter since we have to do both on each trip. We also have to take as a necessary onus the immigration/customs/security controls we have to suffer. Other aspects over which we have no control are the check-in and baggage reclaim procedures. The efficiency of all these can make a trip pleasant or sufferable or totally unbearable.

Where there is a tremendous variety of possibilities is in the journey to/from the airport.

What all the forms have in common is the desire to be able to travel fast, in reasonable comfort, at a reasonable price with the opportunity of reasonable frequency of service so that any waiting is reduced to a minimum.

Individual road transport is highly popular in use. This can range from somebody arriving at the airport in his/her own car, leaving it there for the duration of their time away in a long term car park so is able to pick it up again on return. Another variant is the drop off/pick up where the passenger is taken to/from the airport by a family member or friend by car. This is similar to the taxi service whereby the drop off/pick up service is charged for. The least frequent variant of this is the chauffeur driven car where a company or government agency provides a car and driver to transport its top level executives or dignatories. While indiviual road  transport is highly polluting and occupies much road space, it is also the most convenient because it can provide a door to door service at the convenience of the passenger.

Public transport in the form of bus or coaches is used to a great extent especially at middling to large airports. Coaches can be used to connect to city centres and other important destinations both regionally and long distance. Heathrow has a central bus station connecting to a large number of towns and cities countrywide.Local buses provide connections to neighbouring districts for both passengers and airport workers. In those cases where there is no airport rail station the buses will be used to connect to the nearest rail station as is the case at Luton airport.

However, the one form of public transport to/from airports which has proved to be (a) the fastest with speeds which are higher than those permitted on the roads, and (b) more efficient since it is able to carry large numbers of passengers(up to and even more than 500 pax. each time) is the train or the tram.

Some such train services pass through the airport on a route elswhere. These are the cases of the train services which pass through (under) the airports of Zurich and Geneva on their way to the city centres and even on further to the rail network countrywide.

However, some countries have decided on the model to connect the airports to the city centres from where the passengers disembark to transfer on to other services to their destinations. These have come to be known as the Airport Rail Link.  They can be defined as movements,

“......by mainline-or commuter trains, rapidtransit, people mover or lightrail. Direct links operate straight to the airport terminal,.....” This form of transport is also the least polluting.

It is worth looking at some connections between airports and city centres.  
The Business Traveller magazine published on 30th April 2013 a review written by Alex McWhirter called the 
"Ten top rail-air links"

The information is summed up in the following table. For the purposes of this article this blogger added the column indicating the average speed of the trains according to the information provided.

	journey	distance	time	Average speed	operator
-1.	Brussels Midi - Amsterdam Schiphol:	200kms.	92mins.	130kph.	Thalys
-2.	Strasbourg - Paris CDG:	480kms.	150mins.	192kph.	TGV
-3.	Cologne - Frankfurt:	177kms.	56mins.	190kph.	ICE
-4.	Brussels Midi - Paris CDG:	300kms.	75mins.	240kph.	TGV
-5.	London Paddington-Heathrow:	23,5kms.	15mins.	94kph.	HEX
-6.	Stuttgart - Frankfurt:	210kms.	72mins.	175kph.	ICE
-7.	Stockholm Arlanda-Stockholm Central:	38kms.	20mins.	114kph.	Arlanda Express
-8.	Oslo airport-downtown:	51kms.	19mins.	160kph.	Flytoget
-9.	Zurich airport-downtown:	13kms.	11mins.	71kph.	SBB
-10.	Munich airport-downtown:	37kms.	45mins.	49kph.	DB---S-Bahn

Many of these routes are quite a long distance. That means that high speed trains can be and are used for the connections. Of note are the connections at Stockholm and Oslo. These are not long distance but still manage average speeds of 114kph and 160kph. respectively

Though the following table information does not appear in the article, I have used the same criteria to establish a comparison for connections in the UK.

These connections would be from airports in the south East of England, or have been mentioned at some time as possible alternatives to South East England airports which could serve London.

	journey	distance	time	Average speed	operator
i.	Gatwick - Victoria	43Kms.	30mins.	86Kph.	Gatwick Express (Southern)
ii.	Stansted - Liverpool St.	60kms.	47mins.	77kph.	Stansted Express (Greater Anglia)
iii.	Luton Airport Parkway - St.Pancras	47kms.	30mins.	94kph.	First Capital Connect
iv.	Southend Airport - Liverpool St.	64kms.	53mins.	72kph.	Greater Anglia
v.	Southampton Airport - Waterloo	121kms.	71mins.	102kph.	South West Trains
vi.	Birmingham Int. Airport - Euston	168kms.	72mins.	140kph.	Virgin Trains
vii.	East Mids. Airpt.Parkway - St.Pancras	190kms.	87mins.	130kph.	East Midland Trains
viii.	Heathrow(Central) - Paddington	23,5kms.	15mins.	94kph.	Heathrow Express
ix.	Heathrow(Central) - Paddington	23,5kms.	32mins.	44kph.	Heathrow Connect

Of other airport connections such as those that exist in Scotland or the north of England there are only four of any relevance.

	journey	distance	time	Average speed	operator
W.	Dyce - Aberdeen	10kms.	10mins.	60kph.	Scotrail
X.	Prestwick – Glasgow Central	60,5kms.	40mins.	91kph.	Scotrail
Y.	N/C airport - Newcastle	13kms.	25mins.	31kph.	Tyne and Wear Metro
Z.	M/C airport – Manchester Piccadilly	16,5kms.	15mins.	66kph.	FirstTranspennine Express

Though the circumstances are different only three routes can present fastest times of over 100kph. These are from Southampton, Birmingham and East Midland airports with average speeds of 102kph. 140kph. and 130kph respectively.

It should be pointed out that South West Trains use feed of 750 DC volts from a ground based third rail which will probably be able to provide a maximum speed much lower than the Virgin Trains service using 25,000 AC volts from overhead lines.  Virgin Trains are also speed limited to 200kph. on the WCML,  while the speed capacity of the rolling stock is 225kph. On the MML north of Bedford diesel units must be used up to EM Parkway as the line has not yet been electrified which would suggest that times would be considerably improved when the line is electrified making the option very competitive. Another factor to note on this service is that a bus transfer is necessary to the EM airport terminal as it is some distance from the EM Parkway rail station. Therefore the total travelling time would be somewhat longer.


However, the overall conclusion undoubtedly is that line speeds can and should be improved.



Meanwhile let us look at the rail services on offer to Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow airports.


The origins of Gatwick airport and its rail connection go back to 1891 when a horse racetrack was opened on the land of Gatwick manor next to the London - Brighton Railway. A station was built, called Gatwick Racecourse, to serve the racecourse together with dedicated sidings for the horse boxes.
As was the case then(and is frequently the case now) an aerodrome was built on the race course to facilitate access. Following its opening officially as Gatwick aerodrome in August 1930 the airport gradually increased in activity so that a new rail station was opened in September 1935, known as Gatwick. Two trains per hour stopped here on the Victoria - Brighton line. Thus Gatwick airport was the first in the world to provide a rail connection into the city centre. 
During the 1950s there was discussion about whether to use Stansted or Gatwick as London´s second airport. Gatwick was decided upon and after its rebuilding was opened in 1958 as such. The rebuilt rail station was officially named Gatwick Airport and opened on May 27th. Queen Elizabeth II opened the "new" airport on June 9th.
From June 1958 the rail services were provided  by stopping trains on the Victoria - Brighton line. These were eventually reduced to stopping only at East Croydon between the airport and Victoria. 

In May 1984 the non-stop rail service between Gatwick Airport and Victoria began as Gatwick Express for the first time. It was segregated from the other British Rail´s inter-city operations into a seperate unit. It was thus the first unit to be privatised and started as a franchise, operated by National Express, 28th April 1996.  The franchise was incorporated into the South Central franchise, operated by Southern, on 22nd June 2008. The Department of Transport has subsequently announced that  in July 2015, the South Central franchise will be merged into the proposed new Thameslink Southern Great Northern franchise. The unit at present operates and is planned to operate in the future under its own identity.

Other operators provide services from or through Gatwick Airport. Southern operates under its own name under different stopping patterns with services from the south coast to Victoria and London Bridge stations. First Capital Connect operates from Brighton through Gatwick to Blackfriars, Farringdon(for the future Crossrail), St.Pancras(for Eurostar and intercity lines northwards) and on to Luton(for the airport) and Bedford. First Great Western operates to Reading for connections to Birmingham, to South Wales and to Bristol and the South West.

As part of the expansion of Stansted airport and the extension of electrification of the line from Liverpool St. to Cambridge at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s. a branch line was constructed from  Stansted Mountfitchet, to Stansted Airport. This enabled direct trains to run from Liverpool St., Cambridge and elsewhere. At first converted regional trains were adapted for use on the service but since March 2011 specially constructed electrical units have been designated to the route.

The trains run every 15 mins. and take 47 mins. to reach Liverpool St. with an intermediate stop in outer London at Tottenhan Hale for passengers connecting with LUL´s Victoria Line.

Other services are offered from the airport to Liverpool St. on Greater Anglia local stopping services. Cross Country Trains run trains hourly through most of the day along the tortuous route to Peterborough, Leicester and Birmingham New St. taking about 3hrs.13mins. to cover the 256kms journey at an average speed of 80kph. This speed  not only makes this route very unattractive but also meanders its way across the countryside when the distance between the two points is 162kms. (as the proverbial crow flies). 


The services into Heathrow airport are another story.
With the increase in passenger numbers in the 1960s the government decided to extend the LUL Piccadilly LIne from Hounslow West into Heathrow.


Work began in April 1971 on construction of the Piccadilly Line extension from Hounslow West to Heathrow Central (5.6 kms.).
Hatton Cross (for the maintenance area in the east of the airport) opened 19th July 1975.
The Heathrow Central extension was finally opened 16th December 1977. By the early 1980s passenger figures passed 30 million so a new terminal was built at the south east of the airport,opened officially 1st April 1986. The single line loop from Hatton Cross to Terminal 4 round to Heathrow Central was opened with only one platform in T4 and is unidirectional.

 

A connection from T4 to the Great Western Main Line(GWML) was approved in 1988. This non-stop rail service  from Paddington mainline station to Heathrow T4 was opened in its full extension 23rd June 1998.The service from Paddington to Heathrow runs at 15 minute intervals taking just 15 minutes to arrive at Heathrow Central (to Terminal 5 it takes 21 mins.).The capital cost of GBP190 million was covered 80% by BAA and 20% by British Rail. Thus Heathrow Express(HE) is both operated by BAA(now known as Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited) and owned by them from the  GWML to the airport. However, it is maintained by Network Rail for Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited.The service now runs from Paddington to Terminal 5 while it offers a shuttle service from Heathrow Central to Terminal 4.


 



 



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

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

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




There has been talk about long distance trains being run from Heathrow to other parts of the country but nothing concrete has been decided upon so far. There is, however, an initiative to link the GWML to Heathrow from the direction of Reading.This could be a shuttle service to that important rail centre, or it could the link opening up services from South Wales, Bristol and the South West.

Conclusion: The idea of providing transport links from city centres and elsewhere to main airports has extended worldwide. With new airports it is taken for granted that a rail link will be provided from the airport to the city centre, and even elsewhere. The UK led in this field with the connection from Gatwick airport but has dithered and dathered in the 21st century about the extension of the idea to all airports. The problematic extension of the Edinburgh tram scheme to the airport is a case in point.

The controversial HS2 has proved another case in point. The proposal is for the line to stop someway outside Birmingham on its way north, but not at nor anywhere near the airport. The extension to Manchester stops near the airport but not at it, even though the infrastructure exists. On the extension to Leeds the line is planned to run under(!!!) East Midlands airport to Toton which is somewhat outside Nottingham, but not at the airport. This illustrates nothing but blinkered thinking, if any thinking at all.  

The lines to Gatwick, Luton and Stansted airports have to be looked at again. Increasing the tracks from 2 to 4 or even 6 might well be necessary to accommodate the increase in traffic to be envisaged. This will mean for local as well as airport passengers. The Victoria-Brighton line is crowded so the possibilities of increasing services without subtracting others from the line is rather limited. Luton can be connected to both the MML, the ECML (at Stevenage) while a shuttle train service to the WCML (at Milton Keynes) could make it the best connected airport.  Stansted, on the other hand needs an upgrade of the tracks to 4 so as to enable fast trains not to mix with slow ones thus increasing line speeds.

The same applies to airports elsewhere in the country.For example, Prestwick has a station but few passengers while Glasgow has passengers but no rail connection - it was dumped a couple of years ago. Modernisation and upgrades should be the order of the day. Connection times can only be reduced by two means by (a) better or more track and alignment, or (b) better and more appropriate rolling stock. We often forget that improvements for one purpose(in this case airport links) can frequently mean improvements for all users. So be it.