Could HS2 tickets be included in the price of some long haul flights?

[PTR 444]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ecision-overturned-by-court-of-appeal.201114/

Not gonna happen. Not enough demand for point to point air travel to the UK regions from other countries, especially not long haul.

But what if HS2 tickets to London could become included in the price for say a NY JFK to Manchester flight.

 

[Skymonster]

But what if HS2 tickets to London could become included in the price for say a NY JFK to Manchester flight.

The correct decision is to route HS2 via Heathrow and offer protected connectivity onto trains to/from Manchester (and then ban UK domestic flights on London-Manchester - later same with Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh), not the other way round.

It might work with New York - Manchester for a few foolhardy punters but most who want to go to London will still fly to London. And when it comes to hundreds of other smaller markets, there’s just no additional demand to the north that will fill flights to Manchester in preference to London.

 

[MarkyT]

The correct decision is to route HS2 via Heathrow and offer protected connectivity onto trains to/from Manchester (and then ban UK domestic flights on London-Manchester - later same with Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh), not the other way round.

It might work with New York - Manchester for a few foolhardy punters but most who want to go to London will still fly to London. And when it comes to hundreds of other smaller markets, there’s just no additional demand to the north that will fill flights to Manchester in preference to London.

HS2 WILL have a terminal for Heathrow, located at OOC in west London, which can also offer wider connectivity as well as the airport. Airlines could offer inclusive fares with protected connectivity via OOC if not with pre-checked baggage.

 

[Skymonster]

HS2 WILL have a terminal for Heathrow, located at OOC in west London, which can also offer wider connectivity as well as the airport. Airlines could offer inclusive fares with protected connectivity via OOC if not with pre-checked baggage.

And it will completely fail to deliver the potential a true Heathrow station could provide in terms of mode-shift for domestic air passengers.

 

[edwin_m]

The correct decision is to route HS2 via Heathrow and offer protected connectivity onto trains to/from Manchester (and then ban UK domestic flights on London-Manchester - later same with Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh), not the other way round.

Fitting a 400m 6-platform underground station beneath Heathrow would be challenging to say the least, and it would have to do a huge loop out to the west so as to be pointing back towards London on a sufficiently large radius not to compromise speed. Thereby inconveniencing the 92% or so projected to be on HS2 who aren't going to Heathrow.

 

[Ianno87]

Fitting a 400m 6-platform underground station beneath Heathrow would be challenging to say the least, and it would have to do a huge loop out to the west so as to be pointing back towards London on a sufficiently large radius not to compromise speed. Thereby inconveniencing the 92% or so projected to be on HS2 who aren't going to Heathrow.

That, and no Heathrow station would be convenient for all terminals anyway, so most passengers would have to get on a shuttle regardless.

Which might as well be a regular train from Old Oak Common.

Why don't people get this?

 

[Skymonster]

Fitting a 400m 6-platform underground station beneath Heathrow would be challenging to say the least, and it would have to do a huge loop out to the west so as to be pointing back towards London on a sufficiently large radius not to compromise speed. Thereby inconveniencing the 92% or so projected to be on HS2 who aren't going to Heathrow.

Usual argument - the railways vanity project (including journey times) must be preserved at all costs irrespective of the wider benefits a slight longer route between London and Birmingham and an integrated system would deliver.

 

[Ianno87]

Usual argument - the railways vanity project (including journey times) must be preserved at all costs irrespective of the wider benefits a slight longer route between London and Birmingham and an integrated system would deliver.

Going via a longer route to satisfy the minority of passengers (to the detriment of the majority) strikes me as being the vanity project here.

 

[The Ham]

The correct decision is to route HS2 via Heathrow and offer protected connectivity onto trains to/from Manchester (and then ban UK domestic flights on London-Manchester - later same with Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh), not the other way round.

It might work with New York - Manchester for a few foolhardy punters but most who want to go to London will still fly to London. And when it comes to hundreds of other smaller markets, there’s just no additional demand to the north that will fill flights to Manchester in preference to London.

Why does HS2 need to go via Heathrow to be of use? As few people start end their journey there.

Old Oak Common would give better access to the South West and Wales. Having an extra hour from there to Manchester isn't going to put many off from doing so (maybe business travelers). The thing that's going to put people off is going to be the cost.

 

[PTR 444]

The correct decision is to route HS2 via Heathrow and offer protected connectivity onto trains to/from Manchester (and then ban UK domestic flights on London-Manchester - later same with Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh), not the other way round.

It might work with New York - Manchester for a few foolhardy punters but most who want to go to London will still fly to London. And when it comes to hundreds of other smaller markets, there’s just no additional demand to the north that will fill flights to Manchester in preference to London.

I wholeheartedly agree with banning domestic flights within the UK, especially after HS2 to Manchester opens.

Most people from New York who wish to travel to London will indeed want to take the quickest route but you have to bear in mind that as another member posted upthread, once HS2 phase 2 opens, it will become quicker to get to some parts of Central London from Manchester and Birmingham airports than it will from Heathrow. Most people aren’t going to believe this unless you tell them because they assume any airport with London in the name means it serves that city, while anywhere without it is nowhere near.

I’m not saying Birmingham and Manchester airports should have London included in the name, but I think it would be good if a system was in place that meant all three airports get a fair share of traffic depending on their capacity.

For example, say that there are 20 flights per day between New York and London.
Under my system, Heathrow should get 60% of the UK’s long haul flights, Manchester gets 30% and Birmingham gets 10% therefore these flights would be split between the three airports, so LHR gets 12, MAN gets 6 and BHM gets 2. The same principle would apply to flights from other international destinations.

Under my proposal, the three airports would essentially act as mega terminals for a 5-runway hub spread across the country, linked together by a 200mph railway. Once that is in place, all you need to do is heavily promote and market Manchester and Birmingham airports as being an hour away from London and hey presto, you have your modal shift!

 

[Bald Rick]

I wholeheartedly agree with banning domestic flights within the UK, especially after HS2 to Manchester opens.

All domestic flights in the U.K.? There will be a lot of unhappy people in Northen Ireland and the Scottish islands.

Most people from New York who wish to travel to London will indeed want to take the quickest route but you have to bear in mind that as another member posted upthread, once HS2 phase 2 opens, it will become quicker to get to some parts of Central London from Manchester and Birmingham airports than it will from Heathrow. Most people aren’t going to believe this unless you tell them because they assume any airport with London in the name means it serves that city, while anywhere without it is nowhere near.

I’m not saying Birmingham and Manchester airports should have London included in the name, but I think it would be good if a system was in place that meant all three airports get a fair share of traffic depending on their capacity.

For example, say that there are 20 flights per day between New York and London.
Under my system, Heathrow should get 60% of the UK’s long haul flights, Manchester gets 30% and Birmingham gets 10% therefore these flights would be split between the three airports, so LHR gets 12, MAN gets 6 and BHM gets 2. The same principle would apply to flights from other international destinations.

Under my proposal, the three airports would essentially act as mega terminals for a 5-runway hub spread across the country, linked together by a 200mph railway. Once that is in place, all you need to do is heavily promote and market Manchester and Birmingham airports as being an hour away from London and hey presto, you have your modal shift!

Leaving aside New York, what about all the other long haul destinations, most of which get perhaps 1 or 2 flights a day. And what about Gatwick? And the Glasgow airports? Etc?

 

[edwin_m]

Usual argument - the railways vanity project (including journey times) must be preserved at all costs irrespective of the wider benefits a slight longer route between London and Birmingham and an integrated system would deliver.

You throw in an insult to cloud the argument, and completely ignore the practical point about how to fit a 400m six-platform station underneath and airport where there are already multiple tunnels and underground services.

Currently around 47 minutes for Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport and 45 minutes St Pancras to Luton Airport via Parkway station with connecting bus, will Dart make that much diference other than being more reliable journey time wise than via bus with risk of road congestion?

Yep, post the DART opening, Luton will be advertised as 30 mins from London. Indeed it already is in the promotional material for the DART. From December there will be 2tph from St P that are first stop Luton Parkway in 19 mins, 2 minute change to DART (it’s a direct link off the footbridge) maximum 4 minute wait, 3 minute journey, 2 minute walk to security. Compared to a best Stansted time of 45 mins plus a good 3-5 minute walk from the station to security. Even Gatwick is about 35 minutes on the same basis, 40 if you are heading to North terminal.

Plus Stansted is only directly accessible from Liverpool Street, so needs a Tube journey (or in future Crossrail) for most of central London. Being on the Thameslink route, Luton has direct services from multiple central London stations and from much of south London. Gatwick benefits similarly but is further away.

 

[Bald Rick]

Plus Stansted is only directly accessible from Liverpool Street, so needs a Tube journey (or in future Crossrail) for most of central London. Being on the Thameslink route, Luton has direct services from multiple central London stations and from much of south London. Gatwick benefits similarly but is further away.

Exactly. Crossrail will also help Luton.

It’s worth pointing out that since the terminal works were completed, Luton is experiencing passenger growth of around 10% pa, whilst Stansted is around 2% and currently falling year on year on a monthly basis.

I always found it amusing when Stansted would say, very publically, that they were the only London airport with spare runway capacity.

 

[camflyer]

You throw in an insult to cloud the argument, and completely ignore the practical point about how to fit a 400m six-platform station underneath and airport where there are already multiple tunnels and underground services.




Plus Stansted is only directly accessible from Liverpool Street, so needs a Tube journey (or in future Crossrail) for most of central London. Being on the Thameslink route, Luton has direct services from multiple central London stations and from much of south London. Gatwick benefits similarly but is further away.

Extend Crossrail 2 to Stansted?

 

[Bald Rick]

Extend Crossrail 2 to Stansted?

Never going to happen. Besides anyone on an imaginary Crossrail 2 service from Stansted would be overtaken by at least two Stansted expresses before they got to Tottenham Hale.

 

[Class 170101]

Extend Crossrail 2 to Stansted?

Never going to happen. Besides anyone on an imaginary Crossrail 2 service from Stansted would be overtaken by at least two Stansted expresses before they got to Tottenham Hale.

I would agree with Bald Rick. Crossrail 2 is a London scheme not a wider South East scheme. Stansted however could benefit from Crossrail 2 providing 'parallel' lines between Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne (and hopefully going to Hertford East) and thereby removing the local all stations services between Liverpool Street / Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne Jn with consequential reductions in journey times.

If you wanted a line to Stansted then Michael Schabas alternative scheme for Crossrail 1, known as Superlink, would have given this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what if HS2 tickets to London could become included in the price for say a NY JFK to Manchester flight.

Many countries "codeshare" their high speed trains with airlines, so yes, this would be a good idea, and yes it should be done.

 

[td97]

Many countries "codeshare" their high speed trains with airlines, so yes, this would be a good idea, and yes it should be done.

Yes, Austria is one such example https://www.oebb.at/en/regionale-angebote/ueberregionale-angebote/anreise-zum-flughafen/railandfly. Unfortunately schemes like this seem more prominent in countries with more Government involvement/nationalised operators.

But what if HS2 tickets to London could become included in the price for say a NY JFK to Manchester flight.

I would have thought that the main attraction of HS2 to replace domestic flights would be to connect people onto flights in London to destinations not available from Manchester/Newcastle etc, not a New York to London via Manchester type scheme. Don't forget Manchester Airport HS2 station is planned to be 2km from the main terminal, accessed via Metrolink, and the 3tph HS2 frequency does not even compare with 6tph Crossrail + 4tph HEx from Heathrow.

The problems to overcome will be:

• Working with airlines to cease their operations in favour of HSR (in all likelihood would probably require legislation)
• Through ticketing with all airlines at LHR to offer HS2 stations as destinations.
• An integrated baggage drop/check-in system. Similar to Hong Kong, a "city-centre" bag drop at Old Oak Common, where you drop your bag and don't see it until your destination, would be required, as faffing changing trains with luggage would certainly put people off using "fly+HS2". It could be likened to other airports whereby you drop your baggage at one building and then take a tram/monorail etc. to the main terminal.
• Fair ticketing approach so that delays on one don't impact the passenger on the other, perhaps similar to the new LNWR Airport scheme where you have an anytime ticket but priced as competitively as an Advance.

 

[Bald Rick]

Crossrail 2 is a London scheme not a wider South East scheme.

Crossrail2 is very definitely a wider south east scheme in terms of benefits. However most of the construction work is in London as you say.

 

[Class 170101]

Crossrail2 is very definitely a wider south east scheme in terms of benefits. However most of the construction work is in London as you say.

Also only likely to be funded by London (or certainly a large proportion of it).