|
|
Post by ruislip on Aug 1, 2012 1:31:45 GMT
Was there ever a year when the number of Heathrow passengers(in both directions) who used the Piccy to/from Hounslow West and used the A1 bus between Hounslow and Heathrow exceeded the # of passengers using the Piccy to/from Heathrow?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Aug 1, 2012 6:17:46 GMT
At the time of building the T4 loop hadn't thinking already been made that T5 would be somewhere near the Perry Oaks site and provision made within the loop of a straight section, on the otherwise continuously curving route, at the position of a future T5 station. So that trains would run:
Hatton Cross- T4- T5- T1,2,3- Hatton Cross.
As the proposed T5 station was still a distance from the actual Terminal building an automated "transit system" was supposed to link the two sites.
|
|
|
|
Post by v52gc on Aug 1, 2012 6:36:58 GMT
At the time of building the T4 loop hadn't thinking already been made that T5 would be somewhere near the Perry Oaks site and provision made within the loop of a straight section, on the otherwise continuously curving route, at the position of a future T5 station. So that trains would run: Hatton Cross- T4- T5- T1,2,3- Hatton Cross. As the proposed T5 station was still a distance from the actual Terminal building an automated "transit system" was supposed to link the two sites. Are you sure about the straight section detail. The straight section in the loop is quite long (1 minuteish at 45MPH) and the bit I was told was a provision for a T5 station (ironically now under T5C) is on a curved station just after the second evacuation shaft. Here the tunnel widens. Maybe it's that the straight section was put in to get the line up to the proposed T5 site. My sources aren't set in stone so I was just curious if I was given wrong (or twisted  ) info. |
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Aug 15, 2012 1:48:55 GMT
AIRI, the original design was for a plain Heathrow station, which then became 1;2;3, with no initial plan for T4 and certainly not T5, the loop added for T4 costing a vast fortune.
As to the OP, I can't answer that, but the need for the Heathrow extension at the time outweighed the denial for it, and there was almost no hope of London Transport ignoring the need.
All a bit before my time, I just watched it happen......Well that's a lie as I lived in Lewisham, but saw it unfold.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Aug 15, 2012 9:25:07 GMT
+1 for railtechnician
As SE13 said, UK transport planners have been in an "in denial" mode since the "new Works Programme" was scrapped. This is why the Picc reached Heathrow 15 years late, and why other obvious schemes (such as the Ruislip chord, and the North Weald/M11 'park & ride') didn't stand a chance.
Unfortunately, 'concrete thinking' is still prevalent in some areas, on the basis of nobody ever gets sacked for NOT spending money. This is why Chiltern Railways were a breath of fresh air when the concrete thinkers came close to closing Marylebone and change the route into a busway. This is not off-topic, but a similar example of why those who try and think into the future have such a hard job with these numpties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2012 12:02:18 GMT
AIUI, the original design was for a plain Heathrow station, which then became 1;2;3, with no initial plan for T4 and certainly not T5, the loop added for T4 costing a vast fortune. IIRC when the Picc extension was built Heathrow's new terminal '4' was expected to be on the west side of the airport (i.e. more or less where T5 is), and the design of the extension Heathrow Central station provided for an easy extension to it. Then they decided to build T4 in the 'wrong' place (from the 'tube' perspective), on the SE corner of the airport; and eventually T5 where they first thought, but had then ruled out, so again it didn't fit the then existing tube... |
|
) info.
