What makes you say that?

St. Pancras to Ashford International on HS1 is ~60 miles and takes 35 minutes on Southeastern, including a stop at Stratford! Eurostar trains do this route even faster.

It's only about 35 miles from St. Pancras to Stansted. The same trains could do this in 25 minutes (or less!) on a modern, high speed line.

There is plenty of space along the M11 corridor to build such a line within a reasonable cost - much less than the cost of a new Heathrow runway, for example ;)

If you'd have read it more carefully, I was pointing out that the idea that "most" Londoners could get to STN in 25 minutes as opined earlier in the thread was fanciful since they need to get to whatever station such a (existing entirely in fantasy only at the moment) HS line would go for. As I said, I could get faster to LHR than to King's X or St Pancras, so no matter how fast the imaginary King's X - STN line would be, it'll still be slower! And that goes for a lot of Londoners.

Also: good luck getting a new HS line in place, will this be before or after HS2 and who will pay for it?

We're only talking about a spur off the existing, under-utilised HS1 here, which will pass through a mostly flat and relatively unpopulated region.

Minimal tunnelling should be required and construction costs would be a small fraction of something like HS2 or the overall construction cost of a new hub airport.

The STN project would be more expensive than Runway 3 because it would require about £5 Billion for a high speed rail link from Kings X to STN, plus several £ Billion for three or four new runways to be constructed at STN, plus several Billion for new terminals and stands at STN.
The cost however would be much lower than Boris Island and would provide greater long term aviation needs than LHR R3 and more economic benefits in the long run.
I agree with you that Londoners could get to STN in 25 minutes by super fast rail. I disagree with the previous poster who repeatedlty goes on about how Londoners 'wont accept this' and 'wont do that' but how does anybody know this without trying it? Getting to Paddington takes a while for many Londoners plus the 20 minutes train journey time. In total getting STN would be just 5 minutes more than getting to LHR. A small price to pay for a MUCH bigger airport with MANY more links.

Yes but thats just your circumstances.

What about all the Londoners who live nearer Kings X and St Pancras? not all Londoners are you. Just cause you dont agree with STN being a hub for your own convenience does not mean other Londoners dont.
And what about the 52 Million non Londoners in this country that want a decent sized hub to fuel our economy and fly to and from?

You completely and utterly missed the point that I was not talking about my convenience at all - indeed I recently moved home to the seaside so it makes little difference to me at all nowadays!

What I was doing was, by using myself as an example, demonstrating that it's fanciful to present the STN solution as one that suits "most" Londoners as was implied before. My point was, and still is, that for most Londoners (and you only need to look at a map for that!) STN is not convenient at all!

Those 52 million should first understand that it's the London economy that drives their living standard, it's as blunt as that. And of course many of them from outside London do actually live and work in London. They have a very strong self interest in making sure London strives, otherwise they will have to decamp to Paris, Berlin or some other place on the continent. I don't think they'd particularly want that.

Secondly, they can want whatever they wish, they're not going to get a hub unless there is interest in flying to it. There is nothing stopping these 52 million as you call them from building a hub where they live. I suggest to you that the reason MAN, BHX, NCL etc are not major international hubs is not because Londoners prevent it being so, but simply because there is not enough people flying to those places to make them into a hub. :rolleyes:

Well first of all there are many Londoners who find slogging over to LHR very inconvenient. In East London business travellers are already starting to fly from LCY to FRA and AMS and are changing planes there to avoid the slog over to LHR. Wheras maybe a super fast train to a brand new state of the art STN with lots of capacity and less delayed flights would change their minds.

Second of all the 52 Million other Brits in this country dont really care about LHR unfortunately. Which is why AMS is now Britain's 'favourite' airport and all that other nonsense the AMS mangement love boasting about.

My point is if Brits living in the regions start to more and more ignore overcrowded LHR and flock to the greener grasses of AMS, FRA, CPH, CDG, DXB etc etc then BRITAIN (not just London) is losing out. If BRITAIN can build a proper hub with LOT of runways then STN is the easiest and cheapest option.

You do not seem to have recognized the fact that runway 3 is not enough. Britain deserves a proper hub with four or more runways to minimise delays and congestion and maximise destination coverage. A 3 runway cant deliver all these things. A 3rd runway is just a sticking plaster and give it 10 years after opening, LHR will need a fourth runway and will need to demolish a large area of built up area to do so. A 4th runway wont happen. Basically if we go the 3rd runway route then that is the end of the matter and LHR will exist as a 3 runway congested hub.

STN is an ambitous and maybe fanciful project. However I believe its the best solution. LHR runway 3 is too short term for my liking.

MPs call for Heathrow airport expansion

And say any version of "Boris Island" would cost too much

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3778d956-c...#axzz2U6yEz8U9

Another great proposal for STN expansion. Add 3 runways and a new terminal to accomodate 120m pax a year. STN is the obvious solution.

Except Londoners object to travelling to STN.

their loss

It's not just Londoners. STN isn't a hub, it ain't going to be and it isn't a suitable location for a proper London hub. It's about as much a hub location as "Brussels South" has anything to so with Brussels. I guess it could be seen as the Ryanair interpretation of a hub location.

Add runways to LHR or see the UK's sole hub airport being competed away by other countries.

Yes but with improved rail access and crossrail 2 STN will be much more convenient for central London.
Expanding LHR is just a short term solution to a problem that needs long term planning. STN can be the UK's CDG with plenty of land and lots of runways (only much nicer than CDG obviously).

STN will never be as convenient as LHR. It isn't going to happen.
Get LHR sorted now or face losing the massive economic benefits of having a hub airport - that's the UK's choice.

But what about the rest?

Slightly less than 50% (see section 10.16 here) of O&D passengers at Heathrow are going to/from London - both central and outer. So we can assume that a comfortable majority are heading to locations other than central London.

It'll take more than a fast link across London to persuade people from Surrey businesses to consider getting a taxi to Guildford station, hopping on a train to Clapham Junction, getting on the Crossrail 2 to Tottenham (or wherever) and then the Stansted Express.