Rail to a new airport?

[MidlandMainlie]

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}])

I think it is more likely that Hydrogen will be produced via microbial processes biologically using rather than using electricity. Genetically modified or synthetic organisms like bacteria or algae could produce large quantities of Hydrogen fairly cheaply.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I think you've misunderstood the Hub airport idea, it's to feed passengers from one plane to another. The government has also misunderstood it with HS2 replacing domestic flights. Heathrow is a Hub airport for passengers from the Americas connecting to flights to europe and asia/africa and vice versa, it is not a hub airport for UK passengers as there are very few domestic flights to/from Heathrow. HS2 is a good idea, but for other reasons

 

[d5509]

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

If Heathrow relocated to Shivering Sands there would be a need for new homes and shopping malls alright - but not around Heathrow. Those people earning their living from the airport would relocate with it, leaving the local economy in the Heathrow area depressed.

The nearest towns to Shivering Sands are, to the South, Herne Bay and, to the North, Southend. Airport workers and their families would be looking for homes, and shopping malls, near to the Thanet and South East Essex areas and service companies for industrial premises in the same areas.

Consequently, existing residents in these areas would see their property's prices going up which is, in a way, "stuffing their mouths with gold".

I think it would be a bold government that promoted an offshore airport, as it is more than just building a couple of runways out at sea and patting yourself on the back The make or break part is abut delivering the infrastructure, new homes, etc on time - and budget.

If anyone wants to see a good case for shutting Heathrow then visit Kew Gardens on a summer's day when there is a westerly wind. Sitting and trying to enjoy the flowers and trees whilst a 747 or the like passes above you every minute or less should make the point.

I imagine the old Roskill Committee might have sat in that very place back in the sixties before they recommended Foulness as their preferred site for London' third airport.

 

[Bald Rick]

If anyone wants to see a good case for shutting Heathrow then visit Kew Gardens on a summer's day when there is a westerly wind. Sitting and trying to enjoy the flowers and trees whilst a 747 or the like passes above you every minute or less should make the point.

Or, if you like planes, visit Kew Gardens on a summer's day when there is a westerly wind. Sit and enjoy as a 747 or the like oes over every 1-2 mins!

Unless you get hay fever, then the flowers and trees will make you sneeze.

 

[Peter KS]

Corfield. Those main international 'flag-carrier' airlines who are developing the 'hub' business model are seemingly very successful. Look at Emirates and their Dubai hub. You can now fly from places like Glasgow and Newcastle to Australia changing planes at their sparkling new terminal at Dubai.

Transferring between the five terminals at Heathrow can be a very stressful experience. Thus businessmen travelling between say Budapest and Chicago (there being no direct flights) prefer to go via Frankfurt rather than London. I am not sure whether we should be worried that we are missing out or not.

I do believe we need to start again with a new airport designed on clean sheet of paper rather than trying to squeeze more new runways and terminals where ever we can find space around the edge of Heathrow.

Stansted would seem to be on a good, relatively unrestricted site but its transport links to places other than London are poor.

If it had to be Stansted we would need a much faster / higher capacity rail link from London. That link would have to start from somewhere closer than to the West End than Liverpool Street.

One idea might be to extend Crossrail 2 as far as Stansted.

 

[starrymarkb]

Thing is, if you ditch connections then it becomes much harder to make long haul flights viable. Virgin have been loss making for years as they have no feed at either end. Hence the tie up with Delta to try and get US feed (and possibly eventually a UK feed via Skyteam). It's telling that Virgin have deferred their A380 order many times because they can't fill them with O&D traffic only!

 

[wintonian]

Personally I think we should be reducing the amount of air travel undertaken rather than building new airports.

Having said that London Oxford could be expanded through the village of Bladon, bringing it within striking distance of the business park and HST served Hanbourgh station with the added benefit of bring the tourists right to the doorstep of the Cotswolds AONB.

Hmm, I wonder if the local MP might suddenly have a change of heart over airport expansion and communicate with his constituents occasionally if this was seriously proposed?

 

[d5509]

Stansted would seem to be on a good, relatively unrestricted site but its transport links to places other than London are poor.

If it had to be Stansted we would need a much faster / higher capacity rail link from London. That link would have to start from somewhere closer than to the West End than Liverpool Street.

One idea might be to extend Crossrail 2 as far as Stansted.

Stansted's transport links to places other than London (and perhaps Cambridge) are by road which has made it a bus and coach hub. Not quite Victoria but pretty good for East Anglia.

The GER once ran a St Pancras to Cambridge service, which left the Midland at Kentish Town, ran the length of the T&HR (now the west part of the GOBLIN) and joined the GE Cambridge line at Tottenham. Neither of the requisite chords are now in place but they are not too obstructed to reinstate. Thus the opportunity to run Thameslink to Stansted (from Gatwick) has been there for years.

I agree that Stansted has potential and decent rail links would help its development and travel in general in the surrounding region, however, the competition is established cheap bus and coach routes: which probably mesh well with the budget airlines that operate from Stansted.

The original question in this thread was "Should rail decide the location of a NEW AIRPORT ?".
In Stansted's case, rail was an afterthought, strange as the Roskill's report included a high speed rail link to the proposed Foulness/Maplin site?

 

[HSTEd]

Personally I think we should be reducing the amount of air travel undertaken rather than building new airports.

Domestic air travel is a rounding error really.
So reductions are not really practical.

Building one enormous airport that can take over almost all of London's flights will conserve fuel since we will only have one hub that needs connecting flights to dozens of destinations rather than several requiring independent connections.

You could also pull traffic from other airports in South England, maybe even Birmingham.

 

[jopsuk]

Virgin have finally decided to solve their lack of feeder flights in the UK by starting up a domestic arm

 

[eps200]

Ideally a new airport wants to replace all London airports except maybe city and replace any other nearby ones, a huge 6 runway monster in the Thames build it then shut down the others and build new towns there. This only worth it if you go all out a Heathrow replacement isn't worth building out in the estuary only an all London monster hub. This would have to have trains to as many places as we could possibly manage as well as Eurostar.

If we aren't that ambitious then a new 4 runway Heathrow west of the current site is the better option IMO Stansted is too far out.

 

[LE Greys]

Ideally a new airport wants to replace all London airports except maybe city and replace any other nearby ones, a huge 6 runway monster in the Thames build it then shut down the others and build new towns there. This only worth it if you go all out a Heathrow replacement isn't worth building out in the estuary only an all London monster hub. This would have to have trains to as many places as we could possibly manage as well as Eurostar.

If we aren't that ambitious then a new 4 runway Heathrow west of the current site is the better option IMO Stansted is too far out.

It really depends on where you live. Anywhere west of London is going to have problems getting to anywhere out in the east. I probably should have added that under my Stansted idea, I assumed that Gatwick would carry on with a reduced number of flights, whilst Luton would go over to general aviation only. City would end up as mostly an executive aircraft terminal, with (ideally) more facilities for general aviation as well, but still some commercial flights. The link towards Braintree would enable Stansted to grab a big slice of Norwich's traffic.

Oh, and Heathrow is an ideal location for a rail-served container hub, with the possibility of some cargo flights, but not very many.

 

[HSTEd]

Once we build a new airport we should go all out since there are strong economies of scale.

Six runways or bust.


And the cost of providing transport links across London for those living west of it would not be that enormous.
And east of London location also allows it to pull continental traffic.

 

[Bald Rick]

It really depends on where you live...

... whilst Luton would go over to general aviation only....

...The link towards Braintree would enable Stansted to grab a big slice of Norwich's traffic.

But surely, it is better for the air passenger / customer to have a local airport?

I can't imagine many Norfolk residents would be happy with the prospect of trekking to Stansted for their summer flights to the med.

Meanwhile the (almost) 10 million of us who use Luton every year will not be enamoured with schlepping over to the middle of the North Sea to get a flight to, e.g. Dublin.

 

[eps200]

But surely, it is better for the air passenger / customer to have a local airport?

I can't imagine many Norfolk residents would be happy with the prospect of trekking to Stansted for their summer flights to the med.

Meanwhile the (almost) 10 million of us who use Luton every year will not be enamoured with schlepping over to the middle of the North Sea to get a flight to, e.g. Dublin.

We need to kill short haul aviation if possible and capture as much medium to long as possible. A few locals can stay for the budget airlines but the bulk wants to be pulled into a global hub. Birmingham would still be in place for Ireland.
If the airport is in the south east and we get a sensible boarder check regime it could encourage modal shift from air to rail for say France and even northern Spain.

The more I think about it though Gatwick or Luton should probably stay but with no expansion, certify a second runway but ban it from normal use the huge hub needs a place to divert planes in emergencies but Gatwick is best suited for this has a lot of room.

 

[Bald Rick]

We need to kill short haul aviation if possible and capture as much medium to long as possible. A few locals can stay for the budget airlines but the bulk wants to be pulled into a global hub. Birmingham would still be in place for Ireland.
If the airport is in the south east and we get a sensible boarder check regime it could encourage modal shift from air to rail for say France and even northern Spain.

The more I think about it though Gatwick or Luton should probably stay but with no expansion, certify a second runway but ban it from normal use the huge hub needs a place to divert planes in emergencies but Gatwick is best suited for this has a lot of room.

But why would I want to spend at least 90 mins getting self, wife and 2 whingy kids to Birmingham, when I can be at the front door of Luton in 20? Not to mention the £50 worth of diesel that would literally go up in smoke.

And not withstanding that I love travelling by train, northern Spain is really going to be a niche market by rail. Even when it is high speed all the way (at least a decade away), and was a direct service (it won't) it will be at least 7 hours from St Pancras. Which for most people who live in London will be ~9hrs door to door. Flying is ~5 hours door to door, and usually cheaper. No contest.

 

[HSTEd]

The more I think about it though Gatwick or Luton should probably stay but with no expansion, certify a second runway but ban it from normal use the huge hub needs a place to divert planes in emergencies but Gatwick is best suited for this has a lot of room.

Little point in building the new airport then.

If you build a new airport you have to wipe them all out and sell the land and infrastructure.

It is just not worth it otherwise, there are plenty of places to divert aircraft to in an "emergency".... they could divert to Birmingham or even CdeG.

As to the whole "local airport" thing, high speed connections could be provided to the new airport via my proposed "Loop line", so it would be a 20m drive to Luton and then ~10-15m on the train to the new airport.

The new airport could be designed to handle the passenger loads that would be placed upon it and be built from the ground up to take advantage of advances in technology and changes in customer attitudes.
It would also remove the blight that currently plagues a significant portion of the South East in terms of aircraft noise.

 

[starrymarkb]

TBH I'd expect that a move to an east side airport would mean expansion at Bristol and Birmingham, both of which have a large portion of their catchment within reach of Heathrow so therefore don't get the numbers they otherwise would. Certainly I could see United restarting Trans-Atlantic from Bristol (it loaded well, but suffered because of the more frequent service from Heathrow) as places like Swindon would no-longer be 1hr from Heathrow.

I could also see a move having an affect on places like Reading and Swindon which have attracted a lot of large headquarters because of the proximity to Heathrow. Would they move to Southend/Sheerness?

 

[HSTEd]

TBH I'd expect that a move to an east side airport would mean expansion at Bristol and Birmingham, both of which have a large portion of their catchment within reach of Heathrow so therefore don't get the numbers they otherwise would. Certainly I could see United restarting Trans-Atlantic from Bristol (it loaded well, but suffered because of the more frequent service from Heathrow) as places like Swindon would no-longer be 1hr from Heathrow.

Problem Bristol would have is that routes like New York would still be so regular at the London Airport that the sort of infrastructure proposed to support the new airport could easily put Bristol only 90 minutes from the new airport.

It might still lose on journey time and price, especially if there was some decent code shraing arrangements with the rail operator in place.

I could also see a move having an affect on places like Reading and Swindon which have attracted a lot of large headquarters because of the proximity to Heathrow. Would they move to Southend/Sheerness?

It is an interesting question, but one that is hard to determine without actual experimental evidence, although the presence of a rapid transit infrastructure to the new airport might ameliorate any negative impacts.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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

BHX is rather hemmed in by housing, the WCML, green belt land, the A45 and the NEC. Can't see that expanding much at all.

 

[mister-sparky]

BHX is rather hemmed in by housing, the WCML, green belt land, the A45 and the NEC. Can't see that expanding much at all.

Exactly. There is very little space to expand Brum. Unless they flattened some housing, or dived the A45/WCML into tunnel. None of which is gonna happen.

 

[Bald Rick]

Meanwhile, in other news....

http://www.birminghamairport.co.uk/...-on-birmingham-airports-runway-extension.aspx

the A45 is being diverted)

 

[wintonian]

Google appears to have solved the problem of airport capacity in the Southeast, yep they have re-established Portsmouth Airport.

 

[steevp]

Google appears to have solved the problem of airport capacity in the Southeast, yep they have re-established Portsmouth Airport.

It has also moved a bit further north (according to the Goggle map) from when I were a lad....

 

[al green]

I'm afraid that this big idea falls down in the very first sentence. "The U.K. needs a big new airport."

Er no it doesn't. A few of the elite business types think it does and so do some people in the aviation industry with a vested interest. There is loads of unused capacity at UK airports, including lots in the SE.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm afraid that this big idea falls down in the very first sentence. "The U.K. needs a big new airport."

Er no it doesn't. A few of the elite business types think it does and so do some people in the aviation industry with a vested interest. There is loads of unused capacity at UK airports, including lots in the SE.

Airport capacity that is of little use because it is not at Heathrow.

Total capacity is not the important thing, it is the fact that we do not have a large single hub airport that can carry us into the next hundred years.
Heathrow has coped barely up until now but it is just creaking.

Whether there is free space at some fly infested field in the middle of kent is irrelevant since people will not use it to connect with a plane that comes in to Luton.

 

[Tobbes]

As has been pointed out, Cubbington was the Roskill Commission's recommendation before it go scrubbed. A very interesting paper was written by Tim Leunig for Policy Exchange, with the 4 runway LHR plan subsequently endorsed by The Economist (which may be elitist, but it is very influential).

Personally, I favoured the more radical of closing LHR, Luton and Stansted and plonking a superhub in box bounded by Luton - Harpenden - St Albans - Stevenage with direct links to the ECML, MML, WCML (via MK) HS 1 (via MML), Thameslink (via MML), East-West (either directly or via Stevenage/Cambridge) and HS2 (via WCML).

This would then compete with a 2 runway Gatwick, leaving London City to do what it currently does.

 

[d5509]

Gatwick, Luton and Stansted, by virtue of their budget carriers, have an impressive portfolio of European destinations, so they function quite well as EuroAeroHubs. In this respect they ain't broke so why fix them?

The problem is getting to them from any other UK airport, as mentioned up-thread a high speed loop would ease that problem: so you sit on a train for 25 minutes instead of kicking your heels round a departure lounge.

Heathrow, a good solution 70 years ago, continually modified - bodged - ever since, so now there are terminals and associated railway stations all over the shop, however, the lines are only metro and suburban.

Contrast that to Paris CDG, Schipol and Zurich, which have in addition, through European network rail services.

If the proposed new hub, Shivering Sands or elsewhere, was primarily an International Hub it would have 3 categories of arrival passengers; "international" who just change planes and go on their way, "European" who transfer to the EuroAeroHub, "UK domestic" who hop on a HS train.

Interestingly, if a new HS line branched of HS1 on leaving the Channel Tunnel and headed NW, it could serve Shivering Sands, Stansted, and Luton before joining HS2 north of Aylesbury. That would give the airport direct high speed rail access to Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Brussels and Paris.

 

[telstarbox]

Luton and Stansted aren't hubs - passengers don't use them for connecting flights in the same way that they do London Heathrow, Amsterdam Schiphol, Dubai, etc.

 

[eps200]

But why would I want to spend at least 90 mins getting self, wife and 2 whingy kids to Birmingham, when I can be at the front door of Luton in 20? Not to mention the £50 worth of diesel that would literally go up in smoke.

And not withstanding that I love travelling by train, northern Spain is really going to be a niche market by rail. Even when it is high speed all the way (at least a decade away), and was a direct service (it won't) it will be at least 7 hours from St Pancras. Which for most people who live in London will be ~9hrs door to door. Flying is ~5 hours door to door, and usually cheaper. No contest.

Spain is likely pushing it but certainly France and benalux, You don't drive to brum you hop a train from Luton to either then new hub or brum but yes anyone next to a local airport is inconvenienced somewhat.

I'm afraid that this big idea falls down in the very first sentence. "The U.K. needs a big new airport."

Er no it doesn't. A few of the elite business types think it does and so do some people in the aviation industry with a vested interest. There is loads of unused capacity at UK airports, including lots in the SE.

The capacity is unused because it's spread all over the place what's being proposed is a consolidation into a global hub instead of a half bodged attempted global hub in Heathrow and a spattering of medium sized airports.

People travelling in from NA transfer for onward flights and from Asia going the other way this helps us as we get direct connections to an insane amount of destination, if we integrate it with out HSR our other cities are one change away from all of those places and f we do Eurostar right it continues the virtuous cycle.

Would also be good if air rail and ferry ticketing was integrated so one ticket takes you anywhere from anywhere should be doable with modern tech.