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

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.

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.