|
Post by MoreToJack on Sept 4, 2016 9:12:11 GMT
I am absolutely certain I once saw a train approaching which said just Heathrow on it and I've also seen one which used the "@" symbol in the name too! This would have been caused by a unit with the new destination screens being paired with the old destination screens. There were a few different combinations that would appear on the rear unit.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixcronin on Sept 4, 2016 9:24:26 GMT
I am absolutely certain I once saw a train approaching which said just Heathrow on it and I've also seen one which used the "@" symbol in the name too! This would have been caused by a unit with the new destination screens being paired with the old destination screens. There were a few different combinations that would appear on the rear unit. Indeed, for example if the leading unit had the old display and the rear unit the new one, the rear would display "Cockfosters/U"
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 4, 2016 10:36:35 GMT
What was the station called when terminal 2 was closed?
Calling the terminals after points of the compass might be a mistake - taxi drivers usually ask you which terminal as soon as you get in - as a surprising number of people turn up at the wrong one. But most people have checked the terminal even if many visitors are a bit vague about what the airport itself is called. So having the same nomenclature for the termnals at both Heathrow and Gatwick could lead to confusion.
|
|
|
Post by 315 on Sept 4, 2016 12:14:29 GMT
What was the station called when terminal 2 was closed? Calling the terminals after points of the compass might be a mistake - taxi drivers usually ask you which terminal as soon as you get in - as a surprising number of people turn up at the wrong one. But most people have checked the terminal even if many visitors are a bit vague about what the airport itself is called. So having the same nomenclature for the termnals at both Heathrow and Gatwick could lead to confusion. It was still called Heathrow Central T1 2 3 as the closure was always going to be temporary. HEx decided to remove the '2' from station signage and on-board PAs until it re-opened. Both LU and Hex have removed '1' as the closure is more permanent.
|
|
|
Post by Jerome H on Sept 4, 2016 17:07:38 GMT
Is going from Terminal 5 to Terminal 4 a common occurrence? Because it seems like an awfully strange that neither have a direct link, and on the Picc you've got to go all the way back to Hatton Cross. I wonder if there was any discussion about creating a T junction in the tunnel and running some T 5 via 4 and back out via 123 and running the rest T 123 via 4. Although I suppose running the majority of trains through 123 instead of 4 seems more logical.
On the subject of names, "This is a Piccadilly line train to Heathrow East and West" seems very unintuitive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 18:09:46 GMT
So has the signage and roundels on the Piccadilly Line platforms been changed to just show Heathrow Terminals 2&3?
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Sept 4, 2016 20:05:05 GMT
So has the signage and roundels on the Piccadilly Line platforms been changed to just show Heathrow Terminals 2&3? There's no change to station signage All signage remains as 'Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 20:21:00 GMT
So has the signage and roundels on the Piccadilly Line platforms been changed to just show Heathrow Terminals 2&3? There's no change to station signage All signage remains as 'Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3'. You need to say it once, twice, three times Jack (Sorry, couldn't resist, it's easy to pass over small bits of info like that)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 4, 2016 23:26:29 GMT
Is going from Terminal 5 to Terminal 4 a common occurrence? I doubt it, but for those who do the 482 and 490 buses are reasonably direct - combined frequency of 11 buses per hour and a journey time of 12 minutes. I wonder if there was any discussion about creating a T junction in the tunnel and running some T 5 via 4 and back out via 123 and running the rest T 123 via 4. Much more complicated in engineering terms, and would only provide a direct link from T4 to T5 and not vice versa.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 7, 2016 11:52:59 GMT
Is going from Terminal 5 to Terminal 4 a common occurrence? I don't know how common it is, but there are direct buses and you don't need to change stations when using Heathrow Express/Connect.
|
|
|
Post by banana99 on Sept 7, 2016 19:25:52 GMT
Is going from Terminal 5 to Terminal 4 a common occurrence? Because it seems like an awfully strange that neither have a direct link, and on the Picc you've got to go all the way back to Hatton Cross. I wonder if there was any discussion about creating a T junction in the tunnel and running some T 5 via 4 and back out via 123 and running the rest T 123 via 4. Although I suppose running the majority of trains through 123 instead of 4 seems more logical. On the subject of names, "This is a Piccadilly line train to Heathrow East and West" seems very unintuitive. It is an uncommon connection. And there are plenty of options for connecting travelers. There is a very frequent Airside Bus (which is the natural transportation mode of connection passengers), Heathrow Express, local buses, a short Uber around the fence etc. etc. No-one needs to use the tube or should even consider it.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 478
|
Post by londoner on Sept 10, 2016 9:12:11 GMT
I am absolutely certain I once saw a train approaching which said just Heathrow on it and I've also seen one which used the "@" symbol in the name too! This would have been caused by a unit with the new destination screens being paired with the old destination screens. There were a few different combinations that would appear on the rear unit. I see, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by waysider on May 5, 2017 12:06:34 GMT
I have read previous threads on this subject but never seen a satisfying answer for the following question... Why, when terminal five was constructed, was the existing 'loop' to terminal four not simply extended? I have seen explainations like ' it was unviable and so it was decided to build a straight extention instead' but what does that mean?? I would have thought branching off the existing loop at some point after terminal 4, building a single platform station at the new terminal 5, then rejoining the loop before reaching terminals 12&3 would have been cheaper and provided a better service to all the terminals?
|
|
|
Post by countryman on May 5, 2017 12:21:00 GMT
I assume that you are suggesting that all trains would go Terminal 4, Terminal 5, then Terminal 1-3 (or whatever the original central area is called now). As far as I know, a large proportion of train passengers, whether air travellers or staff, will be travelling to Terminals 1-3, a further large proportion to Terminal 5, and a smaller proption to terminal 4. It will also mean all passengers for Terminals 1-3 having to wait whilst the train reverses at Terminal 5. The way it is arranged at present, all travellers can get a fairly direct service to their terminal without a layover.
|
|
|
Post by waysider on May 5, 2017 13:02:48 GMT
Two things... 1. Yes i can see how most passengers are going T5 and not T4 but with a loop EVERY train serves EVERY terminal ...what could be simpler than that? 2. I was led to believe the reason for not extending the loop was an engineering one?
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 5, 2017 13:30:46 GMT
2. I was led to believe the reason for not extending the loop was an engineering one? Possibly - would more tunnelling have been involved in extending the single track in a big loop rather than building a double track spur from the closest point on the existing loop?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on May 5, 2017 13:41:29 GMT
extending the T4 loop via T5 would have extended travel times to T123 very significantly. See carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/index.php?station=heathrow-terminals-1-2-3 for an idea of the distances involved. Hatton Cross to T4 is 3 minutes T4 to T123 is 5 minutes Hatton Cross to T123 is 4 minutes T5 to T123 is 3 minutes (all according to Journey planner and feel optimistic) Assuming it was built in a single loop, T4 to T5 would likely be about 5 minutes maybe a couple more, so Hatton Cross to T123 via T4 and T5 would be around 12-13 minutes plus dwell time.
|
|
cso
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by cso on May 5, 2017 13:51:41 GMT
Could it have had the signalling changed so it ran the other way - i.e. to go 124, 5, 4?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 14:54:19 GMT
That wouldn't of been easy plus the loop only goes from the Westbound tunnel on the eastbound from Hatton Cross it would of involved a complex junction
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on May 5, 2017 15:59:46 GMT
That wouldn't of been easy plus the loop only goes from the Westbound tunnel on the eastbound from Hatton Cross it would of involved a complex junction ISTR that the complex junction was the consensus view the last time this came up here. The problem with complex junctions on that line is that Heathrow just doesn't stop for a day (let alone four or five) - ever. Irrespective of the cost and any operating problems, the logistics of constructing the junction were probably deemed enough to rule it out.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 5, 2017 20:06:45 GMT
ISTR that the complex junction was the consensus view the last time this came up here. thread merged with previous thread
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on May 5, 2017 21:33:03 GMT
I have read previous threads on this subject but never seen a satisfying answer for the following question... Why, when terminal five was constructed, was the existing 'loop' to terminal four not simply extended? I have seen explanations like ' it was unviable and so it was decided to build a straight extension instead' but what does that mean?? I would have thought branching off the existing loop at some point after terminal 4, building a single platform station at the new terminal 5, then re-joining the loop before reaching terminals 12&3 would have been cheaper and provided a better service to all the terminals? Hmm - I think the short answer to your question is that we got, what we got, due to a mix of geography, history and cost considerations. Obviously if it was easy and cheap then your idea of just extending the loop to pass through T5 before returning to T123 might well have happened. But it might be easier to understand the factors at play if you look at a decent map. Fortunately there is a freely available, and reasonably geographically accurate map - prepared by Heathrow as part of their Runway 3 planning submissions. This may help you see just how problematic the idea of extending from the original loop was, and still is. Heathrow MasterplanThings to note (1) History - others have pointed out that the idea of building a 5th terminal was indeed "on the radar" (sorry) when the loop was constructed - hence if you look closely at the route of the loop on the "Masterplan" you can indeed see there is indeed a decent length of straight tunnel running almost North South from T4 to T123. This straight section was where, at the time, Heathrow was indeed thinking of building T5. Unfortunately those plans changed subsequently and BA decided they needed a much larger terminal than could fit in that location - so Heathrow made use of that space for a dedicated cargo terminal instead. Obviously as very little cargo travels to the airport by tube the passive provision for a station below the cargo terminal remains unused. (2) Geography - If you really wanted to extend the loop from T4 to T5 before returning to T123, then the "Masterplan" will show there are a heap of serious issues to overcome. You can't go tunnelling under live runways or indeed taxiways and Heathrow really does not have any slack capacity to shut a runway whilst a TBM passed underneath. So any extension to the loop would have to head alongside the South runway and taxiways pretty much until the western perimeter fence before starting to swing north to eventually approach T5 from the west using one of the pre-installed tunnels - which were put in as part of the T5 project to ensure future developments would not require closures for runways or taxiways. Unfortunately there are also a few other things in the way. There is a reservoir and a heap of existing road and rail tunnels - used (people mover) - unused (presumably for an eventual Western mainline link) at the west end of the airport. Inherently any extension of the loop would need to pass deep below them before making a very sharp curve to approach the existing Tube T5 tunnels from the west. There is also the issue of finding a route which avoids any impact on the plans for T6. (3) Cost - Snoggle has already identified probably the most important consideration - at the time the Government were somewhat attracted by any solution where the public purse did not have to pay for some or all of the project! Whilst the resulting solution might indeed be seen as sub-optimal for passenger convenience and has left TFL tangled up with complex ongoing charges (effectively paying a premium for access to T5), the idea of Heathrow offering to pay for and provide the tunnels needed for a tube service into T5 was hardly going to be ignored. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 5, 2017 22:41:28 GMT
You can't go tunnelling under live runways Can't you? The T4 loop passes under the southern runway and the Heathrow Express under both. There are also road tunnels under the runways. How were they built?. So any extension to the loop would have to ............ approach T5 from the west using one of the pre-installed tunnels - which were put in as part of the T5 project As the T5 extension was built, and opened, at the same time as T5 itself, I see no reason why the Piccadilly platforms could not have been built on a different alignment, allowing a shorter loop than the one you describe (eg passing just beyond the western end of the south runway, under the terminal at 45 degrees to the runways, and then turning to run parallel to, and south of, the northern runway back to T123.
|
|
|
Post by nig on May 5, 2017 23:56:42 GMT
You can't go tunnelling under live runways Can't you? The T4 loop passes under the southern runway and the Heathrow Express under both. There are also road tunnels under the runways. How were they built?. So any extension to the loop would have to ............ approach T5 from the west using one of the pre-installed tunnels - which were put in as part of the T5 project As the T5 extension was built, and opened, at the same time as T5 itself, I see no reason why the Piccadilly platforms could not have been built on a different alignment, allowing a shorter loop than the one you describe (eg passing just beyond the western end of the south runway, under the terminal at 45 degrees to the runways, and then turning to run parallel to, and south of, the northern runway back to T123. and the same could be said for the overground looking here carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/index.php?station=heathrow-terminals-1-2-3 that does the same cant do all stations on one route .. the way it is it gets passengers to terminal they want quicker without stopping at all 3 and works well so cant see why you would want to put the loop to t5 train would have to have turnaround time before going on to 123
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on May 6, 2017 0:07:52 GMT
The only link missing is T5 to T4, but I think the best way of resoling that (if it is required to) is for a Slough-T5-T123-T4-Feltham route - but this is getting firmly into RIPAS territory.
|
|
|
Post by countryman on May 6, 2017 7:56:37 GMT
As a matter of interest, of trains leaving Central London westbound during the middle of the day, how many per hour run to Rayner's Lane per hour, how many via Terminal 4, and how many direct to Terminals 1-3?
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 6, 2017 8:08:48 GMT
As a matter of interest, of trains leaving Central London westbound during the middle of the day, how many per hour run to Rayner's Lane per hour, how many via Terminal 4, and how many direct to Terminals 1-3? 6tph to T2,3 & 5 6tph via T4 6tph reverse Northfields 6tph to Rayners Lane of which: 3tph continues to Uxbridge services to T2,3 & 5 remain constant throughout the traffic day, all week
|
|
|
Post by nig on May 6, 2017 9:38:41 GMT
As a matter of interest, of trains leaving Central London westbound during the middle of the day, how many per hour run to Rayner's Lane per hour, how many via Terminal 4, and how many direct to Terminals 1-3? 6tph to T2,3 & 5 6tph via T4 6tph reverse Northfields 6tph to Rayners Lane of which: 3tph continues to Uxbridge services to T2,3 & 5 remain constant throughout the traffic day, all week which means T2 & 3 gets 12tph going back to original question if ran a loop to all stations another reason could be you would have 12tph going to all stations so be very little turn around/ recovery time so delays would probably be even worse than they are in current form and t2 and 3 seems to be the busiest station and gets more trains than 4 and 5 at the moment
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on May 6, 2017 9:59:43 GMT
Just starting to stray into RIPAS territory folks . . .
|
|
|
Post by nig on May 6, 2017 11:14:02 GMT
Might of been asked before but why has the underground at t5 got sidings to reverse in and the overground got a crossover ?
|
|