Hasn´t Northolt shot its bolt?

Yet again we return to the question of more runway capacity at Heathrow. When the government coalition was formed a curt "no" was the only answer to the question of runway expansion at the London airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

However, we are still waiting for the government policy paper on airport strategy which was originally due out in March 2012, but postponed to early summer and even now we do not have a publication date. This has led to all sorts of speculation, including a government U-turn on airport expansion. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has insisted, though, that there will be no third runway (R3) at Heathrow. This in its turn has provoked all sorts of speculation and ideas have been floated (by whom??) about alternatives while keeping within the letter of the agreement keeping the lid on airport expansion. 

It appears that by using the assets already in place then a much needed  increase in runway capacity can be achieved. This is where Northolt comes into the equation. At present it is an RAF base in the northwest of London. Rumours have been spread that the RAF is going to close it so it will become available for other uses. Unfortunately, despite delving into all sorts of files, websites, news sources and even the Ministry of Defence itself, absolutely nothing has been found about any possible closure of Northolt as an RAF base.That in itself should be enough to quash any rumours. However, we know very well that governments can change political positions from one week to the next, and even occasionally make quick radical decisions. So let us work on the assumption that the closure of Northolt, as an RAF base, is possible.

Particular Data: At present this base is used mostly for Royal, governmental and other VIP and Defence personnel transport with various HS125s and BAe 146s among other aircraft. It also houses RAF training and Air Cadet units as well as some Army and Royal Navy units. Recently it had based there some Typhoon fast jets taking part in exercises to protect the Olympic Games. At first glance then it seems that this base at Ruislip near Central London has very real uses for the RAF which they would be reluctant to give up.

The two runways are aligned north west - south east (1.4 kms.long) and south west - north east (1.6 kms. long). This latter one cannot be extended to the SW as it runs into the A40 bordering the airfield, nor to the NE more than about 200 meters as it runs into housing and the National Rail and London Underground lines. This latter runway is 07/25. The other NW-SE runway is closed and not in use. It could, however, be reopened and extended to about 2.1 kms. across a green field. This is indicated in the photo of the map hereshown.                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

This is a satellite view of the RAF base at Northolt, indicating the two runways with the SE-NW one extended.

The distance between Heathrow and Northolt is 9.2kms. as the crow flies, so by road it is more but all depends on the route taken and to which terminal one is going.

As you can see there is a problem with runway alignment. This is not so great a problem when the only aircraft flying into/out of the base are small jets and propeller driven aircraft. However, It is certainly a problem for air traffic control with any aircraft of a larger size - these need larger turning circles as well as longer runways. That means a conflict arises which is potentially dangerous.

PublicTransport routes: There is just one bus route which passes the airfield (down West End Rd.) which is the E7 from Ruislip to Ealing Broadway. The next nearest, 114 Ruislip-Mill Hill Broadway, is on the other side of South Ruislip station (along Victoria Road).The nearest station is South Ruislip which is both LUL (Central line West Ruislip branch) and National Rail with Chiltern Railways (Marylebone - High Wycombe) services.None of these goes near Heathrow and so involve at least one change to get there.

Roads: Probably the simplest way to communicate to Heathrow would be to take the A40, which directly bypasses Northolt airfield, westwards to where the M40 begins and then turn south on to the M25 (slots permitting!!). T5 is easily accessible, T4 is relatively easily accessible from the M25, while the central area terminals 2 and 3 need a more roundabout route. 

To gain easy access to the central area from Northolt it would probably mean taking the A4180 then the A312 southwards to the M4 or later the A4 (Bath Road) turning westwards in either case to join the Tunnel Entrance Road to the Heathrow Central Area.

All these options of course mean extra traffic on already excessively crowded roads (hence the slots comment). It means cars, taxis and connecting buses all of which are noisy, polluting and congestion causing. Far from being an attractive option.

It has been suggested that a fast tube link be constructed between Northolt and Heathrow. If it were a tube then presumably it would go underground so as not to disturb the housing (and their residents) in the area. This a very expensive option just to connect a minor airport with small aircraft using it to the main hub airport. Would it be cost effective? On the other hand, if the connection were overground then you would have to choose a route and subsequently decide which housing and businesses would be affected. Also very costly but both economically and politically.

What has not been mentioned are the start and finishing points of such a connection, and even how many stops it should have. Would it start at Northolt terminal or further north - e.g. South Ruislip station to link with the LUL and Chiltern Lines - or even elsewhere? Where would the line end - via T5 and on to Staines, or via T4 and on to Feltham? In either case one terminal would lose out thus reducing the benefit of the connection.

Autonomy: Northolt cannot be looked at as anything other than another minor airport in London. Its operation would, by necessity, be independent from Heathrow. To provide all the auxiliary services that aircraft and passengers need you would have to duplicate them at Northolt - a ridiculous expense. Cleaning, minor maintenance, fueling, food and drink, trolley extras (duty free goods etc.), baggage handling and so on all mean added expense. If they were provided by Heathrow then how much would the roads get clogged up by the extra traffic? For aircraft to be maintained they would have to fly into Heathrow eating up precious slots. It is unimaginable how much the resulting chaos would be, especially in adverse weather conditions.

Who would fly there?: No airline would go to Northolt voluntarily. Even if the government decided to force airlines (and this means BA and Aer Lingus) that fly the British Isles routes then it would be most detrimental to those airlines. If other European airlines were involved then the government would have a diplomatic incident on its hands. Whether one or the other you cannot discriminate in such cases - the resulting case in the European Court brought against the government by the airlines  would be won easily by them and would need a total climbdown by the government, meaning the death knell of Northolt as an airport. This point in itself destroys the case for Northolt.

Runway Three: A third runway (R3) at Heathrow between the M4 and the A4(Bath Road), where originally proposed, would suffer none of the problems encountered by Northolt.
1-It would be built parallel to the present runways, and used in "mixed-mode" so would not cause problems to air traffic control.
2-It could be built as a full length runway to be available IN EMERGENCY/EXCEPTIONAL CASES ONLY while its normal use would be for small and medium jets together with propeller driven aircraft.
3-A new terminal 6 (T6) would be built to serve R3 but the operation would be so designed that airlines/aircraft would always (or at worst almost always) fly into/out of R3 and T6. That way there would be no need at all for planes to cross the other runways, except in exceptional circumstances. 
4-Some housing would have to be demolished but a lot of the housing, hotels, car parks and sundries could be maintained.
5-Taxiways(3 or at most 4) would need to be built to connect to the main airfield and the northern runway.
6-Road works would be needed for the A4 to pass under the taxiways and there might be some other minor works.

7-No tube or rail lines need be built as the existing Heathrow Express/Crossrail line already passes under or near where T6 will be constructed meaning only a new station would be necessary.
8-All auxiliary/maintenance services are on site or on hand.
9-The links to the other terminals would exist from T6 with the opening of the new HE/Crossrail station.
10-Therefore, the case for airlines to object for a transfer of some routes to T6 would not exist. 
11-No (or at worst very little) extra road traffic would be needed - quite the opposite of the case at Northolt where the increase would be substantial.
12-The progressive limitations on noise and engine pollution would be as stated on previous blogs and extended to other airports eventually. 

Northolt is not an option to serve Heathrow at all. R3 and T6 are the best options to relieve some of the congestion at Heathrow. The real solution is to use the assets this country has and let the other airports expand. You cannot deny necessary infrastructure today with arguments when you can insist on their solution for tomorrow.
A  2 or 3 hub solution certainly has merits. Does not the Greater New York area work with LaGuardia, Newark and JFK as major airports?
The mega hub airport idea is just a fad. So many passengers complain at the sizes of Paris CDG and Frankfurt. Let us not try to go down the same road. We have to build on our advantages  and not follow everybody else like sheep. We have five airports (and that is only serving the London area) and must capitalise on those assets. It is so easy to spend other people´s money on big white elephants - no thank you. 


This blogger has written about the subject of a new runway at Heathrow airport several times already. The last one was 23 February 2012 under the title...

"Heathrow´s 3rd runway - how to focus"

The Airtrack Lite fantastic, tripped up?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who wants the Irish....?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                  

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

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

This Rola movie explains and illustrates the basic ideas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does all this mean for our Irish traffic? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which route to take?

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

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

This idea was previously expounded by this blogger under the heading

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

on 24 February 2010.

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

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

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

Who should run the service?

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

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

Conclusion:

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