allturnleft

Sealink

Simple geography states that Gatwick would be the choice to make ...

lcylocal

frank_poulankh

Aberystwyth. I guess CWL might be nearer as the crow flies, but it doesn't have the destinations I need and, when you're stuck with the train, there's no contest. There's a direct train to BHX from Aberystwyth, whereas CWL is at least three changes away (with one of those in England! (Thanks, Dr Beeching!))

kingstontoon

Those frequencies can simply only be combined, both directions (so 26-30 trains per hour, which is still excellent). If you think about it, it's almost impossible to manage dwell times to such an extent that a train can roll into a station, stop, open doors, allow people on and off, close doors and roll out again with sufficient margin ahead of the next train which repeats the process exactly 60 seconds later. And then again 60 seconds later. However, the Victoria line is genuinely 36 trains per hour end to end for 90 minutes in each AM and PM peak, and this will increase to a full 180 minutes of each peak later this year. That's world class, and it's practically very hard to get above 40. But you only have to stand on the platform at Euston or Victoria any peak hour to see how hard it is to achieve even these 100 second headways, given the sheer volume of customers boarding and alighting.

RoyalSwazi

UKtravelbear

Certainly with AMS the airport is now on the main railway line that lots of trains to various places have to go through anyway but rail services didn't arrive at AMS until 1978 (the year after the Piccadilly line reached LHR) and the direct service to Amsterdam Centraal only started in1986

With LGW the station was already on the Brighton Mainline so it was easy to stop trains there from London to many South Coast Destinations so again has a good service. The only specific service (the Gatwick Express) is only every 15 minutes which is the same as the HEX frequency.

Whereas LHR had no such existing services for it to be linked to

South London Bon Viveur

jk156

But they simply don't... as others have pointed out, T4 is eminently worse in terms of connectivity, and T5 has exactly the same connectivity as T2&3, albeit five minutes further down the HEX/tube line. As for the T5B/C transits, give me that any day compared to the eternal walk to/from some of the outlying gates at T3!

In terms of T5 being 'an afterthought'... well yes, it was built on the last free bit of LHR real estate and I think makes a pretty good use of the space. Yes it's at the wrong end of the airfield if you're coming from London on public transport, but by the same token it's far easier to get to off the M4 or M25. And with LHR on Westerly operations 90% of the time, T5's location means you don't waste time taxiing back to the other end of the runway after landing!

And compared to international standards, T5 is a relative dream of connectivity as a hub. Thinking of my flying recently, it's taking me through MEL, HKG, IAD, JFK and NRT. Obviously HKG wins hands down in terms of convenience and connectivity but that has the luxury of being built from scratch within the last 20 years. The others serve 'global' cities but are a mishmash of poorly extended terminals. Only NRT has a dedicated 'express' train to the city, but it's still an hour of your journey even on wonderful Japanese railways...

orbitmic

First point is correct, the one I bolded isn't though as T23 gets all LHR trains (123 before T5 - so shorter, but also 4+123. Going from town, you need to make a guess as to how long your train might be stuck at T4 before continuing to T23, but for landing, the situation of T23 is a lot more enviable in terms of frequencies - they basically get the best of both worlds plus the shortest travel times of all three LHR tube stations by about 3 minutes.

I do agree with others that in terms of station location, on the other hand, T5 is very well located (as is T4).

SonTech

First World problems.....

Seems like the OP wants a non stop connect direct from LHR to where ever they want to go regardless of where it is... not going to happen until we invent teleportation...... Until then everything else is a compromise for most people.

flatlander

The Narita Express is a fine example of "Express train means few stops - not fast". Average speed is about 80km/h, 50mph. Japan has many other examples too. "Rapid" trains rarely go fast either.

Geordie405

Yes, very much like "Fast" services in the South East. I remember standing at various stations and you would get the exhortation to stand clear of the platform edge, "Fast train approaching" and then something would potter through at about 10 mph. Fast in that context was a synonym for non-stop.

Personally I think LHR is reasonably well connected. At least public transportation is actually an option there, unlike somewhere like LAX. It takes me longer to get from LAX to downtown LA by taxi / Uber than it does to fly from Las Vegas to LAX. When I think of well-connected airports then places such as GVA, HKG, ZRH spring to mind. NCL is terrible if the Metro isn't running, and the last service from Airport to the city centre at 23:09 is a little too early.

dwugson

A few comments for this already lengthy discourse. T4 is infinitely worse than T5 - on my only two connections from there onto Heathrow Express the link from T4 arrived as the 'connecting' train was leaving.

And yes, the tube is terrific.....unless you have to manage luggage up and down stairs in a majority of stations. Why not just have ramps for wheeled luggage? Hopefully this will be improved as Crossrail takes shape.

And, finally, for those who lament the connections at LHR - try living anywhere near JFK - no good public transport and constantly clogged roads. London is wonderful by comparison.

usbusinesstraveller