Rail to a new airport?

[Peter KS]

Should rail decide the location of a NEW AIRPORT ?

My background is that I am an airline pilot approaching retirement. I grew up along-side the East Coast mainline and remember my headmaster taking the class to see the last scheduled steam train passing through Hitchin. It seemed to be a sad time of decline and decay on the railways. Today it is pleasing to see so much growth, innovation and optimism on the railways.

So here is my big idea:

The U.K. needs a big new airport. The runways at Heathrow were laid out nearly 65 years ago and are too close together to safely allow simultaneous parallel approaches. The terminals and taxiways are jammed together on a very restricted site hemmed in on all sides by houses. This creates a great deal of inconvenience at the airport: congested taxiways, inefficient passenger handling, difficulties in transferring between flights and car parking etc etc.

This creates a very poor impression for visitors and potential customers for U.K. PLC. Overseas I see a growing number of smart new airports which have space to grow.

We need to start planning for an airport to take us toward the 2050’s and beyond!

But where to put it ?

Somewhere in the Thames Estuary perhaps? I don’t think so. For me there is one place which screams out to me as the ideal location. For travel efficiency purposes it has to be closer to the U.K.’s centre of gravity. It should have good transport links.

I think the new airport should be located in the area between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes. The area is already served by the West Coast Main Line and the Chiltern Main Line. HS2 and the Oxford Cambridge line are to be built in the area.

I have attached a quick sketch map of what I have in mind.

I would envisage direct trains coming to the new airport from as far away as Exeter, Bournemouth, Swansea, Peterborough and Norwich. I would see one train per hour from Brighton routing via the West London line and the West Coast Main Line. The former Eurostar platforms at Waterloo could also be used as one of several London termini. A new station on the West London line serving the West End could be built at Earls Court. It could be integrated into the new Crossrail 2 route.

My idea would be to provide, wherever possible, ‘redundancy’ with the possibility of trains /passengers being re-routed if one line were to closed due to an incident. For example trains from Stratford could route via either HS2 or via the North London Line and WCML.

I do not suggest that HS2 should be used as the main way of getting to the airport during the day on weekdays. It does not make sense to me to increase journey times on the London-Birmingham and London-Manchester HS2 trains by stopping at the airport. However it does seem to me to be a good idea for London-Scotland trains to stop at the airport. Likewise there could be one train per hour starting from Stratford or even from Maidstone using the HS1.

Every morning several dozen flights to European destinations would depart from the airport before 7am. Passengers for these flights could use a series of HS2 trains from Euston between 0530 and 0700 with little impact on other traffic on the line.

Where railways to the new airport cross or pass close to motorways there could be Parkway / Park & Ride stations with large long-term car parks. I would generally discourage people from driving to the airport.

Not only could this new rail network be used to travel to and from the new airport, it could also be used for ‘Cross-country’ journeys. Thus someone wanting to travel from, say, York to Bristol, could travel via HS2 to the airport station and then change to a train using the East West Line.

All of this would, of course, be stupendously expensive. A small part of the money could be recovered by selling off the land of Heathrow and Birmingham airport to create attractive new suburbs. These new suburbs would have excellent transport links.

Yes, yes, yes it would be expensive, but would it produce other savings for us all in the U.K?

What do you think?

 

[The Planner]

You are brave, considering the furore over HS2 going through the Chilterns, you want to plonk a sodding great airport in there! Threading a railway to a new airport is easier than placing an airport based on rail.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I know nothing about aviation but I've always wanted to ask, how much would the land that Heathrow is built on be worth? It's 4.69 sq/mi, on the outskirts of the biggest city in Europe (save Moscow / Instabul), next to a motorway and with decent rail connectivity (the GWML). One thought that has crossed my mind in the past would be to close Heathrow (or downsize it) and use the money gained from the sale of land to build another brand new airport elsewhere which would be void of the problems Heathrow has (as laid out in the OP) and also offer decent connectivity via road and rail to the rest of the country, unlike Heathrow ATM which isn't accessible at all by rail directly from anywhere that isn't Central London or Cockfosters, and be built on cheap land that has future potential. I don't wish to be torn a new one over this, it's just the collective thought of an outsider looking in, but I wonder just how much merit there may be? Isn't it better that than having to keep adding bits on here, there and everywhere in order to keep up with demand?

 

[pablo]

Have you read the desultory numbers that an HS2 spur to Heathrow would serve? Similarly with this proposal, c90% of pax would have no interest in going via the airport but would be inconvenienced by having to go that way.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I still think HS2 is a precursor to an expansion at Birmingham airport.

I know nothing about aviation but I've always wanted to ask, how much would the land that Heathrow is built on be worth? It's 4.69 sq/mi, on the outskirts of the biggest city in Europe, next to a motorway and with decent rail connectivity (the GWML). One thought that has crossed my mind in the past would be to close Heathrow (or downsize it) and use the money gained from the sale of land to build another brand new airport elsewhere which would be void of the problems Heathrow has (as laid out in the OP) and also offer decent connectivity via road and rail to the rest of the country, unlike Heathrow ATM which isn't accessible at all by rail directly from anywhere that isn't Central London or Cockfosters, and be built on cheap land that has future potential. I don't wish to be torn a new one over this, it's just the collective thought of an outsider looking in, but I wonder just how much merit there may be?

And while this is an interesting intellectual exercise, it is simply never, ever, ever going to happen.

 

[Peter KS]

The area I am thinking about is north of the Chilterns.
As a nation we would have to do the right thing towards people whose lives would be adversely affected by new infrastructure developments. I am not sure this is the case with HS2 at the moment.
I am reminded of what Aneurin Bevan said when he explained how he managed to persuade the doctors to play their vital role in the new NHS :
"How did I persuade them? I stuffed their mouths with gold!"

 

[HSTEd]

I will say first of all that I am not an airport design engineer (I assume such things exist?), but merely a graduate of Chemistry studying for another degree in Physics who happens to have a penchant for thought experiments and mad plans.

As I understand it, the primary benefit of a new airport at Shivering Sands or wherever (I mean the proper offshore ones, not the silly coastal ones) is that you can remove any constraints with regards to noise generated by night flights.
This is politically impossible even at relatively rural locations like East Midlands Airport (I recall massive trouble over this a few years back) although it is less "impossible" than it would be at Heathrow.

All that means that a two runway airport at Shivering Sand has far more capacity than a two runway airport where Heathrow is located now.... and since there are no noise or land area complaints an airport at Shivering Sand can be made as large as we want with little to no trouble from nearby residents.

We could potentially build a six runway monster that puts even the insanity that is Atlanta to shame.....

If we have effectively unconstrainted capacity growth at this airport, a high speed loop line around London (or even a partial loop) could enable traffic to be captured from every other airport apart from City.
(At 320kph going around London even Heathrow is only about 25 minutes from Shivering Sand)

It would be even more expensive than the OP plan, but it would have the benefit of making every other London airport, apart from perhaps City obsolete, redeveloping Heathrow alone would raise a ridiculous sum of money.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I would suggest flattening MK and reusing the grid roads as runways/taxiways

 

[Harlesden]

Heathrow was not a planned airport in the normal sense. It was born out of a major deception carried out by senior members of the wartime British government who stated that the requisitioned land was for military use only - farmers and others gave up their land and their businesses in the firm belief that they were helping the war effort.
Secretary of State Archibald Sinclair and Harold Balfour were the two senior government officials who kept the real plans for the land (to create an international airport for London) totally hidden from Parliament. In his 1973 autobiography, Balfour openly admitted having totally deceived the government over the intended usage of the land.
Once work on the site had gone beyone the point of no return - landowners evicted without compensation and their property destroyed - ownership was transferred from the Air Ministry to the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
Public oppostion to the extension of the then brand new airport came as early as 1953. NIMBY's have thus been around for 60 years. Far from being a modern day phenomenon.
The problem with London Airport - as it was when first opened to the public in 1946 - was the fact that nobody anticipated how popular air travel would become.
Just as British Railways and their predecessors did not build four track stretches of line in the hope of heavy use of the route, so those planning Britain's airports did not wish to spend money on extensive facilities that simply might be used, but could just as easily be surplus to requirements and therefore a waste.
Britain is a very small island and a very old island. Virgin land adequate for the development of an airport is either protected from development by legislation or is in some way unsuitable whether due to the formation of the land itself or its location.
Extension of existing airports is the only solution, but there is always some heavy opposition to the merest whisper of development.

 

[jopsuk]

The 1971 Roskill Commision recommended putting an airport at Cublington. Which is almost exactly where you suggest.

 

[30907]

As I recall the area was one of those proposed for a new London airport before Stansted was chosen (possibly even in the days of the original Foulness idea). Wing was the name I recalled, though Google reminds me it was at Cublington. And someone posted quicker!

 

[John07]

The 1971 Roskill Commision recommended putting an airport at Cublington. Which is almost exactly where you suggest.

The minority report (Prof Colin Buchanan) of Roskill recommended Foulness as a combined airport and seaport. That was adopted by the Government but was scrapped within three years because:

1. It would be too expensive
2. No-one would want to use it

Now 40 years on the same thing is being played out once more with Boris Island being proposed (and the seaport actually being built at Shell Haven: London Gateway).

The reason that the Government went with the minority report was the flack they were getting from the NIMBYs around Cublington. The same would happen several times over now and the whole thing would be bogged down in planning enquiries and judicial review for years to come.

 

[Peter KS]

John, Yes I agree it will be a big problem.

We may have to stuff the mouths of everyone living in the area with gold!

But, returning to my quick reply above, when Bevan was asked about the morality of paying more money to the already well-to-do doctors to get the NHS started, he said that it was for the greater good. He did what he had to get the NHS started.

May be we should bite the bullet to get a world class transport system.

 

[tractakid]

I would suggest flattening MK and reusing the grid roads as runways/taxiways

No thanks.

 

[dysonsphere]

Hmmm the basic problem here is the invested money in Heathrow. As others have said its not ideal in the wrong place I can't think of any other major airport which has its primary approach profile over a captial city. Unless the goverment pays no new airport is going to be built. Who after all is going to pay for writing off the investment in Heathrow up to now.

 

[starrymarkb]

Any replacement for Heathrow really needs to be to the West of London. Remember that Heathrow is the UK's main airport and therefor needs good links to the Rest of the UK. The Thames estuary is not going to be easy to access...

Personally I think HEX should have been built as a through tunnel linking at both ends to the GWML, much like the Station at Schiphol. Of course you then have the problem of the remote terminals, maybe a free people mover like the Airside system at T5 or Stansted

 

[d5509]

. .
a high speed loop line around London (or even a partial loop) could enable traffic to be captured from every other airport apart from City.
(At 320kph going around London even Heathrow is only about 25 minutes from Shivering Sand)

It would be even more expensive than the OP plan, but it would have the benefit of making every other London airport, apart from perhaps City obsolete, redeveloping Heathrow alone would raise a ridiculous sum of money.

Those airports could be rendered obsolete save as access points to this "High Speed Loop Line".

OK if you live to the West of London but another couple of stations - probably Maidstone and Chelmsford might be added for those who don't, with 7 stops it might not be so high-speed.

A third rail line in, a shuttle to Farringdon - for Crossrail and Thameslink - would help but then why not go the extra mile to an end-on junction with HS2 for Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester and run HS2 all the way to Shivering Sands?

Rail infrastructure like that might convince airlines to back an offshore airport, apart from finding the finance, one problem would be convincing the NIMBYs who live close to the high speed loop: or put the whole thing in tunnel.

 

[HSTEd]

Any replacement for Heathrow really needs to be to the West of London. Remember that Heathrow is the UK's main airport and therefor needs good links to the Rest of the UK. The Thames estuary is not going to be easy to access...

Why?

If you built a high speed access line that goes to the west of London by going "over the top" you can connect it with all main lines and have a giant park and ride on the current Heathrow site, its car parking does not take up a significant portion of the airport's area.

 

[mister-sparky]

an airport anywhere near the chilterns would never ever ever ever be approved by any government ever. there's enough fuss putting a railway line near the area, let alone a mahoosive airport. any airport the size that london needs would have to be built out at sea. it's the only logical option. most of the complaints about airports is the noise from surrounding houses. in the middle of the sea there isn't any! it'll only upset some twitchers worried about a couple of seagulls.

 

[LE Greys]

an airport anywhere near the chilterns would never ever ever ever be approved by any government ever. there's enough fuss putting a railway line near the area, let alone a mahoosive airport. any airport the size that london needs would have to be built out at sea. it's the only logical option. most of the complaints about airports is the noise from surrounding houses. in the middle of the sea there isn't any! it'll only upset some twitchers worried about a couple of seagulls.

A couple of seagulls would upset some aircrew and a load of passengers if they went up a few jet engines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Looking at the site, it seems very near Silverstone. OK, that's probably not a popular choice, wiping out the UK's leading motorsport venue, but it shows that there's land suitable for aviation in the area at least (the place once hosted Wellington bombers).

Personally, I'd go for a massive expansion of Stansted, which is mostly surrounded by farmland, if I was going to replace Heathrow. As well as conveniently justifying an eastern routing for HS3 (always welcome over here ) it takes an existing site and expands it rather than produces a new site. There is already a second runway, but not currently passenger-certified, and there would be an option to extend the rail link to Braintree and turn Witham Junction into a triangle. Hopefully, there would be enough room for a second tunnel bore. Further runways and an additional terminal would require land purchases, but I'm sure it's possible to do so. Even without service expansion, Stansted already has trains to London and Birmingham, and is one change away from practically all of GA's, EC's, EMT's, XC's and VT's stations.

 

[Bald Rick]

There was a proposal about 15-20 years ago for a big airport between Rugby and Coventry with the runways across the WCML. Seemed a bit odd at the time with BHX just up the road, and Coventry airport even closer.

 

[LE Greys]

There was a proposal about 15-20 years ago for a big airport between Rugby and Coventry with the runways across the WCML. Seemed a bit odd at the time with BHX just up the road, and Coventry airport even closer.

Oh yes, does anyone remember Westminster Airport? Story published about this time of year, the best-served area in London with regards to public transport, and with comparatively-few people living there. Landings would happen over the City, which is entirely business. Takeoffs would head towards Chelsea, but compensation would be lower, because it has a lower population density than other parts of London.

Only snag is you have to bulldoze Westminster.

 

[HSTEd]

A couple of seagulls would upset some aircrew and a load of passengers if they went up a few jet engines.

This tends to only be a problem in coastal sites, the true offshore ones like Shivering Sand tend not to suffer from this problem. (The birds tend to stick close to shore)

Over-water fog is also not a problem now as since all airliners will be landing using ILS/LAAS now anyway.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Personally, I'd go for a massive expansion of Stansted, which is mostly surrounded by farmland, if I was going to replace Heathrow. As well as conveniently justifying an eastern routing for HS3 (always welcome over here ) it takes an existing site and expands it rather than produces a new site.

HEathrow was largely surrounded by farmland when it opened, and the presence of the airport will likely use to large quantities of new housing be constructed nearby for staff and the like.

Add in businesses looking to locate near London's hub airport and within 30 years you could be looking at having the same problem as now.
Additionally future expansions could be increasingly troublesome for the same reason.

Additionally expanding airports is always troublesome for the same reason that upgrading railway lines tends to cost a fortune and disrupt everything for years.

Much better to build a brand new airport that can be completed rapidly as there is no need to work around existing operations.

 

[JamesRowden]

We need to start planning for an airport to take us toward the 2050’s and beyond!

The world's oil reserves may be a large obstacle to your plan. Planes require a fuel with a high energy per unit volume and mass. This source, http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/energy/energy-supply/fossil-energy/when-will-oil-run-out, states:

There are an estimated 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world’s major fields, which at present rates of consumption will be sufficient to last 40 years.

By 2040, production levels may be down to 15 million barrels per day – around 20% of what we currently consume. It is likely by then that the world’s population will be twice as large, and more of it industrialised (and therefore oil dependent).

Hydrogen could be produced to power planes but an energy efficient means of mass producing hydrogen has not been found yet. (The Hydrogen would be produced by using energy from another source [e.g. electricity {presently electrolysis is very inefficient}])

This seems to indicate that the air travel market could completely crash due to the running costs before the time that you have aimed your airport to be most useful for. :roll:

 

[nerd]

This tends to only be a problem in coastal sites, the true offshore ones like Shivering Sand tend not to suffer from this problem. (The birds tend to stick close to shore)

Over-water fog is also not a problem now as since all airliners will be landing using ILS/LAAS now anyway.

.

It is true that you don't get many birds flocking offshore; but once you have erected an airport in what was offshore; it is no longer 'offshore', but has become 'coast'; and you will get birds aplenty.

 

[HSTEd]

It is true that you don't get many birds flocking offshore; but once you have erected an airport in what was offshore; it is no longer 'offshore', but has become 'coast'; and you will get birds aplenty.

Flocking birds don't appear to have caused catastrophic damage to operations at Kansai airport in Osaka, Kitakyushu Airport in Fukuoka or Chūbu Centrair Airport in Nagoya.

This appears to be an oft overstated threat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The world's oil reserves may be a large obstacle to your plan. Planes require a fuel with a high energy per unit volume and mass.

They are also one of a handful of industries which will have a hard time shifting away from hydrocarbon fuels, and therefore they are likely to have "first call" on remaining resources.

Hydrogen could be produced to power planes but an energy efficient means of mass producing hydrogen has not been found yet. (The Hydrogen would be produced by using energy from another source [e.g. electricity {presently electrolysis is very inefficient}])

"Energy Efficiency" if you are using electricity is largely irrelevant once you have a decarbonised grid based on something like nuclear power.
Energy will be cheap and night-time electricity even more so.
Per unit equivalent you can substitute 1kg of liquid hydrogen for something on order of 2.2kg of kerosene. Which means that its higher price per unit weight at the present time is slightly misleading.

This seems to indicate that the air travel market could completely crash due to the running costs before the time that you have aimed your airport to be most useful for. :roll:

Assuming an oil production does collapse in hte near future, which is looking increasingly unlikely, and assuming other industries do not switch away from oil consumption to a great enough degree, using hydrogen will still likely be practical.

Additionally, using hydrogen makes things like the Reaction Engines A2 practical, which would likely cause an explosion in air travel thanks to the collapse in journey times.

 

[gordonthemoron]

given the tube infrastructure, Heathrow would be an excellent place to build a new town and some of the terminals could be used as shopping malls

 

[Clip]

Expand Heathrow.

/Thread

 

[Kettledrum]

The world's oil reserves may be a large obstacle to your plan......This seems to indicate that the air travel market could completely crash due to the running costs before the time that you have aimed your airport to be most useful for. :roll:

With limited funds for public expenditure on infrastructure, putting so many eggs in the aviation basket seems very high risk. Over the past 40 years, we haven't even found the money to build replacement power stations to keep our electricity supply on, or electrify key parts of the rail network when there's been a cast iron business case that would save money.

Surely we should get this "future proof" infrastructure in place before gambling on aviation and new hydrogen technology.

 

[corfield]

I like the idea in some ways, but any Govt trying to propose it would have to be very courageous, in the Yes Minister spirit...

Two major issues i think would be are:

1) Noise and air pollution over central England, and subsequent constraints on its activity.

2) In 20-40 years time central England is likely to become more urbanised and built on, excarbating (1)


I think the offshore idea is the best option - supported by a HS rail link arcing round from OOC, through CML/WCML/MML/ECML interchanges (but combining if possible).

Alternatively, develop a less hub & spoke system using Birmingham, Manchester, East Midlands, Luton and Stanstead to share the flight load and offer a distributed system which already has local and regional transport roads/rail routes in place or in development. I wonder if HS2 will indeed underpin expansion of these ?